Thomas Ebron v. Karen D. Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00720-REP-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000163334]. Mailed to: Thomas Ebron. [17-6622]

Appeal: 17-6622

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6622

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

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