Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06572/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06572-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 2
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). We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Patterson claims that defendants are responsible for placing 

false information in his file, which the Virginia Parole Board

relied on to deny him parole. Even if that information was 

false, “where the denial of parole . . . rests on one 

constitutionally valid ground, the Board’s consideration of an 

allegedly invalid ground would not violate a constitutional 

right.” Bloodgood v. Garraghty, 783 F.2d 470, 475 (4th Cir. 

1986). Here, in addition to the allegedly false information, 

the Board provided several other constitutionally valid grounds 

for denying parole. 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

Appeal: 15-6572 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2