Frederick Goodman v. Maryland Parole Commission, No. 09-8164 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8164 FREDERICK L. GOODMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; DAVID R. BLUMBERG, Chairman; MICHAEL BLOUNT, Commissioner; MARTHA S. KLIMA, Parole Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08cv-01337-RDB) Submitted: March 11, 2010 Decided: March 31, 2010 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick L. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Howe Baron, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frederick L. Goodman appeals the district court s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for the reasons stated by the We have Accordingly, district court. Goodman v. Maryland Parole Comm n, No. 1:08-cv-01337-RDB (D. Md. filed July 15, 2009, entered July 16, 2009; Nov. 12, 2009). We take note that the use of victim impact statements in making a determination regarding parole and the Open Parole Hearing policy did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or Goodman s right to due process. 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.