Case Name: Daniel ROSS, Appellant, v. James C. WOODARD, Chairman, N. C. Parole Comm.; Jane G. Greenlee, Commissioner; Joy J. Johnson, Commissioner; Rae H. McNamara, Commissioner; Commissioner Oxendine; Sam Boyd, Case Analyst, in their individual and official capacities, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1982-07-16
Citations: 683 F.2d 846
Docket Number: No. 82-6134
Parties: Daniel ROSS, Appellant, v. James C. WOODARD, Chairman, N. C. Parole Comm.; Jane G. Greenlee, Commissioner; Joy J. Johnson, Commissioner; Rae H. McNamara, Commissioner; Commissioner Oxendine; Sam Boyd, Case Analyst, in their individual and official capacities, Appellees.
Judges: Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 683
Pages: 846–847

Head Matter:
Daniel ROSS, Appellant, v. James C. WOODARD, Chairman, N. C. Parole Comm.; Jane G. Greenlee, Commissioner; Joy J. Johnson, Commissioner; Rae H. McNamara, Commissioner; Commissioner Oxendine; Sam Boyd, Case Analyst, in their individual and official capacities, Appellees.
No. 82-6134.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 10, 1982.
Decided July 16, 1982.
Thomas F. Loflin, III, Shirley L. Fulton, Durham, N. C., for appellant.
Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., Jacob L. Safron, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N. C., on brief, for appellees.
Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge:
Presently serving a life sentence in North Carolina for first degree murder and failing in his continuing endeavors to have the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment construed as requiring a prisoner's access to his files when he is considered for parole, Daniel Ross again appeals. Assuming arguendo that our latest pronouncement on this point does not bar the instant action by the doctrine of res judicata, see Ross v. Byrd, No. 78-6449 (4th Cir. July 24, 1980) (unpublished), we state unequivocally that Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979), does not require the State to provide a potential parolee with access to his prison files. Franklin v. Shields, 569 F.2d 784, 800 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1003, 98 S.Ct. 1659, 56 L.Ed.2d 92 (1978).
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.