Case Name: Michael F. DEHONEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jonathan E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees; Henry F. Dehoney, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jonathan E. Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-03
Citations: 178 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: Nos. 05-7534, 05-7535, 05-7536
Parties: Michael F. DEHONEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jonathan E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees. Henry F. Dehoney, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jonathan E. Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
Michael F. DEHONEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jonathan E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees. Henry F. Dehoney, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jonathan E. Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Nos. 05-7534, 05-7535, 05-7536.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2006.
Decided: May 3, 2006.
Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Barton Jon Vincent, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
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