NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a0592n.06 No. 11-2287 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T DONALD MAL ONE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. PATRI CI A CARUSO, Direc tor of MDOC - sue d individually

and in her

officia l capa city ; GARY CAPEL L O, Warden - sued individually and in his officia l capa city ; J OHN B OYNTO N, Warden at Straits Correctional F acility - sued individually

and in his official ca

pacity ; GREG MCQUI GGI N, Warden - Stra its/C hippewa Corr ectional F acility - sued individually

and in his officia l capa city , Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

BEFORE: M ARTIN and CLAY, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge. *
P ER CURIAM . Donald M al o n e, a pro se Michig an prisoner, appea ls a district court judgme nt dismissing his c ivil rights a ction filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This c ase has been ref err ed to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1) , Rules of the Six th C i rc u it. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agree s that oral argument is not neede d. Fe d. R. App. P. 34(a)

. Seeking monetary , decla ratory , and injunctive relief , Malone s u ed P at ricia Caruso, the Direc tor of the Michig an Depa rtment of Correc tions (MDO C ); Gre g McQuig g in, the Warden of S t ra its Correc tional Fa cility ; Gar y Capello, the W arde n of Bara g a C orre ctional Facility ; and J o h n Boy nton, the Deputy Warden of Chippewa Correc tional Fa cility

. The defe ndants wer e sued in their individual and officia l capa cities. Malone claimed that the defe n d a nts improperly revoke d his wife’ s

The Honora

ble J oseph M

. Ho od, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Kentucky , sitti ngby

designation.No. 11-2287 - 2 - prison visitation privileg es without due proc es s of law and in reta liation for his prison g rieva nce filings. On Marc h 2, 2011, the district court e ntere d an orde r gra nting summary

judgme nt in favor of C aruso, McQuig g in, and C apello. On S eptember 28, 2011, the di strict co urt gra nted s ummary judgme nt in favor of

Boy nton and dismissed Malone’s ac tion with prejudice. On appeal, M alone concede s that the di strict court properly g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of Caruso and Boy

nton. Malone also conce des that the district court proper ly g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of McQuig g in and Capello with respe ct to his reta liation claim. Malone rea sserts, howeve r, his claims that McQuig g in and Capello violated his proce dural due proce ss rights with respe ct to his free dom of association claim. We revie w de novo a district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt. W uliger v. Mfrs. Life Ins. Co

. , 5 6 7 F. 3 d 787, 792 (6th Cir. 2009). Summary judgme nt is proper “if the movant shows that there is no g enuine dispute as to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(a)

. Malone contends that the defe ndants violated his visitation rig hts and fre edom of association without due proce ss beca

use he was not aff

orded a hearing. The rec ord reve als that Malone’s wife

was not allowed to visit him bec au s e she was considere d a threat to the safe ty and secur ity of the prison. Malone’s wife’ s visiti ng p ri v i l eges wer e initially denied based on her status as a felon on probation. In addition, her subsequent application for visitation was denied beca use she fa iled to proper ly disclose a prior rules infrac tion involving visitation and beca use Malone had succe ssfully smugg led a ce l l p h o n e into the prison. Thus, the prison had a leg itimate penolog ical interest in denying Malone’s wife’ s visitation application. See Pell v. Procunier , 417 U.S

. 8 17, 822 (1974) (“[A] prison inmate reta ins those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or wit h the l eg itimate penolog ical objectives of t he corre ctions sy stem.”). Malone was not deni ed due process, and the di strict court did not err by awa rding summary judgme nt in favor of the defe ndants. See id

. at 822–28; Bazzetta v. McG innis , 430 F.3d 795, 804–05 (6th Cir. 2005).No. 11-2287 - 3 - To the extent Malone contends that administrative comments on the visitor trac king sy stem might adversely aff

ect his future chanc es for parole , his due proce ss claim is meritless beca use he does not have a liberty interest in parole

. “The re is no constitutional or inhere nt rig ht of a convicted person to be conditionally rele ased befor e the expiration of a valid sentenc e.” Gree nholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal &Corr. Complex , 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). Fur ther, Michigan has not cre ated such an interest. Crump v. Lafler , 657 F.3d 393, 399–400 ( 6th Cir. 2011). The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.