
    Jerry Emery DE LA CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-55909.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 18, 2011.
    Jerry Emery De La Cruz, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
    Amanda Lloyd, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Jerry Emery De La Cruz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

De La Cruz contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. He also contends the Board failed to fix a maximum term of punishment, and that the district court abused its discretion by not providing an opportunity to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Final Report and Recommendation. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.—, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because De La Cruz raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Further, because De La Cruz has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. Id.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     