Tyson v. Ozmint

Filing 920070921


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6494 CHARLES K B TYSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JON E. OZMINT, Director, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (6:06-cv-00385) Submitted: September 14, 2007 Decided: September 21, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles K B Tyson, Appellant Pro Se. Ruskin C. Foster, Charles Jonathan Bridgmon, MCCUTCHEN, BLANTON, JOHNSON & BARNETTE, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2007). We deny as moot Tyson's motions to We dispense with oral argument consolidate and to stay the case. 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 (1978); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(6). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review that order. - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?