Case Name: Charles K.B. TYSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT, Director, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-21
Citations: 241 F. App'x 999
Docket Number: No. 07-6494
Parties: Charles K.B. TYSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT, Director, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 241
Pages: 999–999

Head Matter:
Charles K.B. TYSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT, Director, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 07-6494.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 14, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 21, 2007.
Charles K.B. Tyson, Appellant Pro Se. Ruskin C. Foster, Charles Jonathan Bridgmon, McCutchen, Blanton, Johnson & Barnette, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Tyson appeals the district court's order modifying the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Tyson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Tyson v. Ozmint, No. 6:06-cv00385, 2007 WL 680600 (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2007). We deny as moot Tyson's motions to consolidate and to stay the case. 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.
To the extent Tyson seeks to appeal the district court's separate order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, we note that Tyson's notice of appeal was not timely filed and he failed to timely obtain a reopening of the appeal period. See Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(6). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review that order.