Case Name: Michael CASAROTTI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-03
Citations: 430 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 09-55921
Parties: Michael CASAROTTI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
Michael CASAROTTI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-55921.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2011.
Filed May 3, 2011.
Michael Casarotti, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
Kim Aarons, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for RespondentAppellee.
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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 Michael Casarotti 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.
Casarotti contends that the Board's 2006 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. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011). Because Casarotti 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.