Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Leon Cheatham, a Virginia prisoner, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claiming that the Virginia Parole Board (“Board”) had improperly found him ineligible for parole. The district court ruled that Cheatham’s claim could not be brought in a § 1983 action and instead needed to be pursued in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. See Cheatham v. Muse, No. 1:13-cv-01082-CMH-JFA (E.D.Va. filed Aug. 30 & entered Sept. 4, 2013). On appeal, Cheatham argues that his claim is cognizable under § 1983. We vacate and remand for further consideration of his complaint.

Cheatham claims that the Board improperly concluded that he was ineligible for parole consideration. Thus, if Cheat-ham succeeded on his complaint, it would, at most, have resulted in a parole hearing where the Board would have full discretion to deny parole. Because Cheatham’s claim would not necessarily result in a speedier release, it does not lie at “the core of habeas corpus” and, therefore, may be pursued in a § 1983 action. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand for further proceedings. * We dispense with *246 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED.