Case Name: Claude WITHERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Claude FINN, Warden, 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 628
Docket Number: No. 08-17781
Parties: Claude WITHERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Claude FINN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Claude WITHERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Claude FINN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-17781.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2011.
Filed May 3, 2011.
Keith Wattley, Uncommon Law, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Robert C. Cross, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
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 Claude Withers appeals 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.
Withers contends that the Board of Prison Term's 2003 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 (9th Cir.2011). Because Withers 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.