Court Opinion

ID: 2963668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:44.003423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:43.984303
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 14, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                       

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2271 

                                     ERIC DAVIS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                    DAVID BERUBE,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Eric Davis on brief pro se.
            __________
            Jeffrey  R.  Howard,   Attorney  General,  and  Wynn  E.   Arnold,
            ___________________                             _________________
        Assistant  Attorney General,  on Motion  for Summary  Disposition, for
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  The judgment is affirmed substantially  for
                 __________

            the reasons recited by the Magistrate-Judge in his Report and

            Recommendation  dated  November  17,  1994.    We  add   that

            plaintiff  has  done  nothing  to  call  into  question   the

            conclusion--elsewhere  reached by  the New  Hampshire Supreme

            Court--that the  state's parole statute, see  N.H. Rev. Stat.
                                                     ___

            Ann.     651-A:6 (Supp.  1994),  and  the accompanying  Adult

            Parole Board Rules, fail to  create a 14th Amendment  liberty

            interest with regard to  the denial of parole.   See Bussiere
                                                             ___ ________

            v.  Cunningham,  132  N.H.  747,  752-54  (1990);  Baker   v.
                __________                                     _____

            Cunningham,  128  N.H.  374,  380-81  (1986);  see  generally
            __________                                     ______________

            Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and  Correctional
            __________    _______________________________________________

            Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979).
            _______

                 Affirmed.
                 _________