Thomas Ebron v. Karen D. Brown , 697 F. App'x 779 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6622
    THOMAS EBRON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    KAREN D. BROWN, Chair, VA. Parole Board; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,
    Members,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00720-REP-RCY)
    Submitted: September 26, 2017                               Decided: September 28, 2017
    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Ebron, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Ebron appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
    (2012) complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
    (2012). Ebron claims that the Virginia Parole Board violated his due process rights in
    denying him discretionary parole by not permitting him to review his file, failing to
    consider certain factors, and violating certain notice and review procedures. We have
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    The parole board complied with the due process requirement of providing Ebron
    with a statement of reasons for the parole denial, Burnette v. Fahey, 
    687 F.3d 171
    , 181
    (4th Cir. 2012), and Ebron does not have a protected liberty interest in the parole
    procedures themselves, Hill v. Jackson, 
    64 F.3d 163
    , 170 (4th Cir. 1995). While Ebron
    complains that the district court failed to give notice before dismissing his complaint, the
    district court was not required to do so under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28
    U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a), (b) (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
    order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6622

Citation Numbers: 697 F. App'x 779

Judges: Niemeyer, Traxler, Hamilton

Filed Date: 9/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024