Dehoney v. Ozmint, No. 05-7534 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7534 MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director of South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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 contentions argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.