Dehoney v. Ozmint
This text of Dehoney v. Ozmint (Dehoney v. Ozmint) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7534
MICHAEL F. DEHONEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 05-7535
JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees. No. 05-7536
HENRY F. DEHONEY,
JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-21981-HMH-BHH; CA-04-22025-HMH-BHH; CA-04-22026-HMH-BMH)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Barton Jon Vincent, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 - PER CURIAM:
Michael F. Dehoney appeals the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and construing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West
Supp. 2000) and dismissing the complaint and the order denying his
motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dehoney v.
Ozmint, Nos. CA-04-21981-HMH-BHH; CA-04-22025-HMH-BHH;
CA-04-22026-HMH-BMH (D.S.C. Aug. 10 & 29, 2005). 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
- 3 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dehoney v. Ozmint, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dehoney-v-ozmint-ca4-2006.