¶1 Douglas Lee Husketh appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion 1 and affirm its decision. 2 See Husketh v. Sills, No. CA-01-682-3-MU-02 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2002). *105 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.
¶2 AFFIRMED.
¶4 . Husketh’s claim is barred because his challenge of his parole eligibility implies the invalidity of his continued confinement, and Husketh makes no showing that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated or called into question by the issuance of a federal writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.1995) (holding action challenging validity of parole proceedings calls into question fact of confinement and thus must satisfy Heck element).