Case Name: Thomas EBRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen D. BROWN, Chair, VA. Parole Board; Virginia Parole Board, Members, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-28
Citations: 697 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 17-6622
Parties: Thomas EBRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen D. BROWN, Chair, VA. Parole Board; Virginia Parole Board, Members, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 779–779

Head Matter:
Thomas EBRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen D. BROWN, Chair, VA. Parole Board; Virginia Parole Board, Members, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6622
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 26, 2017
Decided: September 28, 2017
Thomas Ebron, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Ebron appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § .1983 (2012) complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). Ebron claims that the Virginia Parole Board violated his due process rights in denying him discretionary parole by not permitting him to review his file, failing to consider certain factors, and violating certain notice and review procedures. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
The parole board complied with the due process requirement of providing Ebron with a statement of reasons for the parole denial, Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171, 181 (4th Cir. 2012), and Ebron does not have a protected liberty interest in the parole procedures themselves, Hill v. Jackson, 64 F.3d 163, 170 (4th Cir. 1995). While Ebron complains that the district court failed to give notice before dismissing his complaint, the district court was not required to do so under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a), (b) (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED