Shango Damballah, f/k/a Harold Mosley v. GWENDOLYN A. BRIGHT, Director of Parole Board Support Services

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8035
SHANGO DAMBALLAH, f/k/a Harold Mosley,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GWENDOLYN A. BRIGHT, Director of Parole Board Support
Services; JAMES A. WILLIAMS, Chairman of Parole Board; ORTON
BELLAMY, Vice Chair of Parole Board; MARLENE MCCLAIN,
Secretary of Parole Board; DWAYNE M. GREEN, Member of Parole
Board; JIM GORDON, Member of Parole Board; JOHN MCCARROLL,
Member of Parole Board; J. P. HODGES, Member of Parole
Board; C. DAVID, Member of Parole Board sued in their
official capacities for declaratory and injunctive relief;
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON
SERVICES, sued for declaratory and injunctive relief,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (2:08-cv-02867-HMH)
Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: January 5, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shango Damballah, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shango Damballah appeals the district court order and
judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and dismissing his civil rights complaint. We
have reviewed the record, the district court order and the
claims raised on appeal, and affirm. The timing of the
psychological examination was not improper and Damballah was not
entitled to a second hearing prior to his parole being
rescinded. See Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14, 19-20 (1981).
Nor was Damballah entitled to treatment by the South Carolina
Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services because he
was not under the Department’s supervision. Finally, insofar as
Damballah challenges the September 3, 2008 denial of parole,
this issue was not raised below and is not reviewable by this
court. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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 of 2 --