DAVIS v. DENNISON, 219 Fed.Appx. 68 (2nd Cir. 2007)

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to summary orders filed after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by this court’s Local Rule 0.23 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1. In a brief or other paper in which a litigant cites a summary order, in each paragraph in which a citation appears, at least one citation must either be to the Federal Appendix or be accompanied by the notation: “(summary order).” Unless the summary order is available in an electronic database which is publicly accessible without payment of fee (such as the database available at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/), the party citing the summary order must file and serve a copy of that summary order together with the paper in which the summary order is cited. If no copy is served by reason of the availability of the order on such a database, the citation must include reference to that database and the docket number of the case in which the order was entered. Robert DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert DENNISON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-2723-pr.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 2, 2007.

Page 69

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court isAFFIRMED.

Robert Davis, pro se.

Martin A. Hotvet, Assistant Solicitor General (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Andrea Oser, Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), State of New York Office of the Attorney General, Albany, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Davis appeals pro se from a decision of the District Court adopting in relevant part the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece recommending dismissal of plaintiffs complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as punitive damages, against defendant Robert Dennison, Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole (“Parole Board”), for alleged due process violations committed in connection with the Parole Board’s decision denying plaintiff parole. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the issues on appeal and the procedural history.

Page 70

Upon a review of the record, and substantially for the reasons set forth in the portions of Magistrate Judge Treece’s ruling that were adopted by the District Court, we conclude that the District Court did not err in holding that plaintiffs requests for punitive damages and injunctive relief were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, defendant’s absolute immunity from suit, and § 1983. Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs request for declaratory relief is not barred by immunity doctrines or § 1983, it nonetheless fails on the merits. New York State’s parole scheme does not create a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Barna v. Travis, 239 F.3d 169, 171 (2d Cir. 2001). Thus, plaintiff has no basis for arguing that defendant’s alleged actions violated his due process rights.

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.