Dehoney v. Ozmint

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UNPUBLISHED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

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. 05-7536

HENRY F. DEHONEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -