Davis v. Berube
This text of 66 F.3d 306 (Davis v. Berube) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
66 F.3d 306
NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.
Eric DAVIS, Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
David BERUBE, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 94-2271.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Sept. 14, 1995.
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.
Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, SELYA and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
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. Sec. 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 F.3d 306, 1995 WL 552035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-berube-ca1-1995.