Ferguson v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-30233
Summary Calendar
SHANNON CHARLES FERGUSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
BOARD OF PAROLE; RICHARD STALDER; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, Records,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:05-CV-1073
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shannon Charles Ferguson, Louisiana prisoner # 214807, appeals
the district court’s denial and dismissal with prejudice of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, which it construed as a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition. While Ferguson argues that the district court
erred in construing his civil rights complaint as a habeas petition
because he is not challenging his conviction or confinement, his
claim that his 1996 seven-year sentence, no matter how served, was
over in seven years is essentially an argument that he should
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
receive credit towards his 1996 conviction for his time spent on
good time parole. The specific characterization of Ferguson’s
claim is not critical, however, because Ferguson has not
demonstrated a constitutional violation. See Thomas v. Torres,
717 F.2d 248, 248-49 (5th Cir. 1983).
When a prisoner is released because of a reduction of his
sentence, “he shall be released as if released on parole.” LA. REV.
STAT. 15:571.5(A)(1). If a person’s parole is revoked for a
violation of the terms of parole, the person shall be recommitted
to the department of corrections “for the remainder of the original
full term.” Id. at 15:571.5(C); see Howard v. Louisiana Bd. of
Probation and Parole, 589 So. 2d 534, 534-36 (La. App. 1991), writ
denied, 590 So. 2d 87 (La. 1991); see also Bancroft v. Louisiana
Dept. of Corrections, 635 So. 2d 738, 740 (La. App. 1994). There
is no federal constitutional right to the reduction of a sentence
of a parole violator for time spent on parole. See Morrison v.
Johnson, 106 F.3d 127, 129 n.1 (5th Cir. 1997); Newby v. Johnson,
81 F.3d 567, 569 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Ferguson’s
challenge to his sentence computation is without merit.
Ferguson correctly argues that, because he never received a
copy of the magistrate judge’s report, the district court erred in
finding that he filed no objections to the magistrate judge’s
report. The error was, for the reasons noted above, harmless. See
McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731 (5th Cir. 1994), overruled on
other grounds, Kansa Reins. Corp. v. Congressional Mortgage Co.,
2
20 F.3d 1362, 1373-74 (5th Cir. 1994). As Ferguson has failed to
show that the defendants violated his constitutional rights, the
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3