Case 6:13-cv-00361-LED-JKG Document 14 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 72
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JIMMIE MARK PARROTT, JR. #1621310
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13cv361
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The above-entitled and numbered petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge Judith K. Guthrie. The Report of
the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the
disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration. Petitioner has filed objections.
Having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner to the Report, the Court
is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and
Petitioner’s objections are without merit. Specifically, Petitioner contends he has demonstrated the
loss of a liberty interest because he alleges that a recent parole opportunity was denied and set-off
for a year due to his disciplinary case. However, that does not address the validity of the claims in
his § 2254 petition; furthermore, his argument fails because a prisoner has no right to parole, only
a mere hope that the benefit will be obtained, and therefore has no liberty interest such as Petitioner
now claims. Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 11, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L. Ed. 2d
668 (1979) (citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570-71, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548
(1972)); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 2000) (there is no constitutional expectancy
Case 6:13-cv-00361-LED-JKG Document 14 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 73
of parole in Texas and, accordingly, any delay in a petitioner’s consideration for parole cannot
support a constitutional claim). Petitioner’s objections are therefore without merit and are overruled.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED and his petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED and his action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A certificate
of appealability is DENIED. All motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby
. SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of July, 2013.