Case Name: Antonio FUERTE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Rissi OWENS; Howard A. Thrasher, Sr.; Elvis Hightower; Juanita Gonzalez, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-24
Citations: 334 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 08-10671
Parties: Antonio FUERTE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Rissi OWENS; Howard A. Thrasher, Sr.; Elvis Hightower; Juanita Gonzalez, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
Antonio FUERTE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Rissi OWENS; Howard A. Thrasher, Sr.; Elvis Hightower; Juanita Gonzalez, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-10671
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 24, 2009.
Antonio Fuerte, Jr., Mineral Wells, TX, pro se.
Marjolyn Carol Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Fuerte, Jr., Texas inmate # 01341702, appeals the dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis, civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against individual members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (the Board). The district court dismissed Fuerte's complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Fuerte's argument that he is entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief on claims surrounding the Board's ruling that he was not entitled to mandatory supervision release fails to state a due process violation. See Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 15-16, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979); Boss v. Quarterman, 552 F.3d 425, 428-29 (5th Cir.2008); Coleman v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 216, 224 (5th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. See Cornish v. Corr. Servs. Corp., 402 F.3d 545, 549 (5th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.