USCA4 Appeal: 25-6494 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6494

DAMIAN JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA WEST, Chairman; LLOYD BANKS, Vice Chairman; MICHELLE DERMYER, Member; CHADWICK DOTSON, Chair - D.O.C.; SAMUEL L. BOONE, JR., Member Parole Board D.O.C.; HAROLD TAYLOR, Parole Interviewer D.O.C.; ANDREA GREEN; B. BULLOCK, Parolee's Supervisor; K. COSBY, Regional Abudsman,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00120-MHL-MRC)

Submitted: November 20, 2025 Decided: November 25, 2025

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damian Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6494 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Damian Jackson appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ motion to

dismiss, dismissing Jackson’s

complaint, and denying Jackson’s Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and

discern no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion that Jackson’s due process

claim related to his entitlement to annual parole review failed to state a claim to relief or in

the court’s denial of his motions for the appointment of counsel.

While

provides that the Virginia Parole Board should

review an inmate’s eligibility for parole at least annually, the right to annual parole review

“is a procedural function of Virginia’s parole scheme rather than a substantive right unto

itself”; thus, “the Constitution does not afford that ‘right’ any protection under the Due

Process Clause.” Hill v. Jackson,

(4th Cir. 1995). Further, in prior

challenges to Virginia’s parole scheme, we have held that “at most, parole authorities must

furnish to the prisoner a statement of its reasons for denial of parole.” Burnette v. Fahey,

(4th Cir. 2012) (citation modified). The Virginia Parole Board satisfied

due process by sending Jackson two letters explaining why it denied him parole. Thus,

there was no due process violation upon which Jackson could state a claim. Lastly, because

there is no right to counsel in civil actions, we conclude that the district court did not err in

denying his motions to appoint counsel. See, e.g., Wojcicki v. SCANA/SCE&G,

(4th Cir. 2020).

Accordingly, we grant Jackson’s motion to amend, construed as a motion to file a

supplemental informal brief, and affirm the district court’s orders. Jackson v. West, No.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6494 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/25/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

3:24-cv-00120-MHL-MRC (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2025; May 13, 2025). 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

3