Gregory Leon Hammer v. Sheriff Bryan Hutcheson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999976012-2] Originating case number: 7:16-cv-00499-JLK-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000055224]. Mailed to: Gregory Leon Hammer ROCKINGHAM-HARRISONBURG REGIONAL JAIL 25 South Liberty Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801-3714. [16-7579]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7579 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/04/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7579 GREGORY LEON HAMMER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SHERIFF BRYAN HUTCHESON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cv-00499-JLK-RSB) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Leon Hammer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7579 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/04/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Gregory Leon Hammer, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues or judge a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). of appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hammer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 Appeal: 16-7579 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/04/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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?