Greg Hammer v. Wendy Hobb

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00008-JCC-MSN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999645763]. Mailed to: Greg Hammer. [15-6497]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6497 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6497 GREG L. HAMMER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WENDY HOBBS, Sued in their individual and officials capacities; J. KEELING, Sued in their individual and officials capacities; M. MEYERS, Sued in their individual and officials capacities, Defendants – Appellees, and KEELING, Warden, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00008-JCC-MSN) Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Greg L. Hammer, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6497 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Greg L. Hammer appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights complaint in which Hammer Amendments alleged and the violations Religious of Land the First Use and and Fourteenth Institutionalized Persons Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2012). have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hammer v. Hobbs, No. 1:14-cv-00008-JCC-MSN (E.D. Va. Mar. 3, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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?