Case Name: Jacob ISRAEL, a/k/a John Langowski, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-12
Citations: 59 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 02-7836
Parties: Jacob ISRAEL, a/k/a John Langowski, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 59
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
Jacob ISRAEL, a/k/a John Langowski, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7836.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 25, 2003.
Decided March 12, 2003.
Jacob Israel, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jacob Israel appeals the district court's order denying relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) on his claim alleging the Virginia Department of Corrections improperly classified him as ineligible for parole under Virginia Code § 53.1-151(B1). Israel initially filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). The district court dismissed without prejudice and required that Israel file his claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Israel does not seek release from custody, but rather seeks only a determination that he should not have been classified as ineligible for parole, Israel's claim was properly brought under § 1983. See Strader v. Troy, 571 F.2d 1263, 1269 (4th Cir.1978). The district court, however, properly determined Israel's claims were without merit because he has the requisite prior felony convictions to be classified as parole ineligible under Virginia law. We therefore affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court but modify to reflect dismissal under § 1983 rather than § 2254. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.