CUNNINGHAM v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION FCI (2018)

Eugene Jerome Cunningham appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Cunningham's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of Cunningham's motion for discovery. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cunningham v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, No. 9:16-cv-02847-RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2017; May 12, 2017); see Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 251-55, 120 S.Ct. 1362, 146 L.Ed.2d 236 (2000) (holding that, when retroactive change in parole law does not by its own terms show risk of prolonging inmate's incarceration, to show ex post facto violation, inmate must demonstrate new law's retroactive application will result in longer period of incarceration than under earlier rule). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.