Case Name: Samuel William LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-24
Citations: 439 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 10-15916
Parties: Samuel William LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
Samuel William LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-15916.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 24, 2011.
Samuel William Lewis, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Steven Grant Warner, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Samuel William Lewis appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Lewis contends that the Board's 2007 decision to deny him parole was not supported by "some evidence" and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); see Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1044-46 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Lewis raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.