Issac Patterson v. Harold Clark

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00006-RAJ-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999705759]. Mailed to: Issac D. Patterson. [15-6572]

Appeal: 15-6572

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6572

ISSAC D. PATTERSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARK, Director Virginia/D.O.C.; BRYAN WATSON,
Warden; JERRY TOWNSEND, Assistant Warden; ELIZA S. WILLIS,
Institutional Program Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00006-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted:

October 29, 2015

Decided:

November 24, 2015

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Issac D. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6572

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Issac

D.

Patterson

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing
Patterson’s complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).
have

reviewed

Patterson

the

claims

record

that

and

defendants

find
are

no

reversible

responsible

for

We

error.
placing

false information in his file, which the Virginia Parole Board
relied on to deny him parole.
false,

“where

the

denial

Even if that information was

of

parole

.

.

.

rests

on

one

constitutionally valid ground, the Board’s consideration of an
allegedly
right.”
1986).

invalid

ground

would

not

violate

a

constitutional

Bloodgood v. Garraghty, 783 F.2d 470, 475 (4th Cir.
Here, in addition to the allegedly false information,

the Board provided several other constitutionally valid grounds
for denying parole.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2