Calloway v. District of Columbia Board of Parole , 103 F. App'x 740 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6283
    EZRA CHARLES CALLOWAY, a/k/a Charles Smith,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF PAROLE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-03-3570-8-AW)
    Submitted:   June 2, 2004                  Decided:   August 2, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ezra Charles Calloway, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ezra Charles Calloway, Sr., a Maryland state prisoner,
    seeks to appeal the order of the district court denying his request
    that the District of Columbia Board of Parole be instructed to hold
    a parole revocation hearing to determine if he violated his parole
    in the District of Columbia.     We find that Calloway’s action is
    properly construed as a petition for mandamus relief.   See Johnson
    v. Reilly, 
    349 F.3d 1149
    , 1153 (9th Cir. 2003); Heath v. United
    States Parole Commission, 
    788 F.2d 85
    , 89 (2d Cir. 1986).       The
    Board of Parole filed a detainer with the Maryland Division of
    Correction. There is, however, “no constitutional duty to provide
    [a parolee] an adversary parole hearing until he is taken into
    custody as a parole violator by execution of [a] warrant.” Moody v.
    Daggett, 
    429 U.S. 78
    , 89 (1976); Larson v. McKenzie, 
    554 F.2d 131
    ,
    132-33 (4th Cir. 1977); Gaddy v. Michael, 
    519 F.2d 669
    , 677 (4th
    Cir. 1975).    We affirm the district court’s order denying Calloway
    relief, as Calloway has not yet been taken into custody as a parole
    violator.     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
    - 2 -