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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?