Goodman v. Maryland Parole Commission

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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. (1:08- cv-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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the 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