United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
ORDER & MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
T. Numbers, II United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Anthony Leak, a state inmate proceeding pro
se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (D.E.
1). This matter is currently upon the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment (D.E. 35, 48). Also before
the court are (1) Leak's motion for extension of time
(D.E. 34); (2) Leak's motions for discovery (D.E. 41,
44); and (3) defendants' motion for a protective order
(D.E. 45). For the following reasons, the court will grant
Leak's motion for an extension of time, deny Leak's
discovery motions, and grant defendants' motion for a
protective order. And the undersigned recommends that the
district court grant defendants' motion for summary
judgment, and deny Leak's motion for summary judgment.
1987, Leak was convicted of the following offenses: (1) one
count of first-degree rape, for which he received a life
sentence; (2) one count of first-degree sexual offense, for
which he received a life sentence to run concurrently to the
sentence for first-degree rape; (3) one count of first-degree
burglary, for which he received a sentence of twenty-five
years imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the
sentence for first-degree rape; (4) one count of larceny, for
which he received a sentence of five years imprisonment, to
run consecutively to the sentence for first- degree burglary;
and (5) one count of second-degree kidnapping, for which he
received a sentence of fifteen years imprisonment, to run
consecutively to the sentence for larceny. Stevens Aff.
¶ 3, D.E. 51-1.
became eligible for parole in March 2016. Id. ¶
4. On March 7, 2016, the North Carolina Parole Commission
(“Commission”) denied parole. Id. ¶
5. Leak is eligible for another parole review in March 2018.
Id. ¶ 6.
an inmate's scheduled parole review, a parole case
analyst prepares a case presentation and parole
recommendation for the Commission, which includes the
“official crime version” of the inmate's
criminal offense; the inmate's disciplinary, vocational,
and educational history while incarcerated; any psychological
assessment conducted by the Commission's staff
psychologist; and any risk assessment or other evaluations.
Stevens Aff. ¶¶ 9-11. A majority of the
commissioners may order a more extensive investigation after
reviewing the case analyst's initial report. Id.
¶ 11. The Commission does not conduct personal
interviews of inmates prior to deciding whether to grant them
parole. Id. ¶ 8. However, before an
inmate's parole review, a Commissioner meets with members
of the public including victims and the family, friends,
advocates, or attorneys for offenders. These meetings are
made available on a first-come, first-serve basis and
generally occur within close proximity to an offender's
upcoming parole review date and permit the attendees to
present to the Commissioner any evidence or information in
support of or in opposition to an offender's suitability
for parole release. Id. ¶ 11.
Commission has four members, and they not required to follow
the case analyst's recommendation. Id. ¶ 9.
The Commission follows a set of statutory criteria in
considering a prisoner for parole. Id. ¶ 12.
The Commission may refuse to release on parole a prisoner it
is considering for parole if it believes:
(1) There is a substantial risk that he will not conform to
reasonable conditions of parole; or
(2) His release at that time would unduly depreciate the
seriousness of his crime or promote disrespect for law; or
(3) His continued correctional treatment, medical care, or
vocational or other training in the institution will
substantially enhance his capacity to lead a law-abiding life
if he is released at a later date; or
(4) There is a substantial risk that he would engage in
further criminal conduct.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1371(d).
the Commission has reviewed Leak's parole only once.
After following the procedure described above, the Commission
notified Leak that his parole was denied by letter.
Id.¶ 13. Specifically, in a letter dated March
8, 2016, the Commission stated:
The [Commission] has reviewed and evaluated all available
information surrounding your case and concluded that parole