Unpublished Dispositionrichard Watson, Petitioner-appellant, v. Michigan Department of Corrections, Respondent-appellee, 869 F.2d 1494 (6th Cir. 1989)

Before KRUPANSKY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and CHARLES W. JOINER, Senior District Judge.^* 

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the briefs and record, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Petitioner Watson filed this action for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claimed he was entitled to relief because the Michigan parole authorities did not strictly adhere to their procedural timetable in 1984 in rejecting his request for conditional release. The case was referred to a magistrate who recommended denial of the relief sought. The district court adopted the recommendation, over petitioner's objections, and this appeal followed. The parties have briefed the issues, petitioner proceeding pro se.

Upon consideration, we find ample support in the record before us to support the district court's decision. We have examined the relevant Michigan law in light of Board of Pardons v. Allen, --- U.S. ----, 107 S. Ct. 2415 (1987), and find that Michigan has not created a federally cognizable due process liberty interest in parole release. Petitioner's claim thus is reduced to one for a due process right to due process. In federal constitutional law, no such right exists. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250 (1983).

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.