Thomas Ebron v. Karen D. Brown, No. 17-6622 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6622 THOMAS EBRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KAREN D. BROWN, Chair, VA. Parole Board; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Members, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00720-REP-RCY) Submitted: September 26, 2017 Decided: September 28, 2017 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Ebron, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Ebron appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). Ebron claims that the Virginia Parole Board violated his due process rights in denying him discretionary parole by not permitting him to review his file, failing to consider certain factors, and violating certain notice and review procedures. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The parole board complied with the due process requirement of providing Ebron with a statement of reasons for the parole denial, Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171, 181 (4th Cir. 2012), and Ebron does not have a protected liberty interest in the parole procedures themselves, Hill v. Jackson, 64 F.3d 163, 170 (4th Cir. 1995). While Ebron complains that the district court failed to give notice before dismissing his complaint, the district court was not required to do so under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a), (b) (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We 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
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.
