Court Opinion

ID: 9837983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:01.85879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.698747
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6259      Doc: 10         Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6259

        NATHANIEL UPSHUR,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        WILLIS J. FOWLER; ANGELA BRYANT; ERIC MONTGOMERY,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03124-BO)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Nathaniel Upshur, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6259      Doc: 10         Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Nathaniel Upshur appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Upshur’s

        claims challenging the denial of his parole are foreclosed by our decision in Bowling v.

        Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 920 F.3d 192, 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2019)

        (declining to extend Eighth Amendment protections regarding sentencing of juveniles to

        life without parole to postsentencing proceedings and finding that the only process required

        under the Fourteenth Amendment for parole proceedings was an opportunity to be heard

        and a statement of reasons for parole denial).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.         Upshur v. Fowler, No.

        5:20-ct-03124-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2023) We deny Upshur’s motion to appoint counsel

        and 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

                                                     2