Jamarv Paremore Hammond, also known as Jamarv P. Hammond, 265009 v. Lieutenant Burns; Sergeant Christopher Coons; Corporal Cooper; Corporal Julius Bean

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6084
JAMARV PAREMORE HAMMOND, also known as Jamarv P. Hammond,
#265009,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT BURNS; SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER COONS; CORPORAL
COOPER; CORPORAL JULIUS BEAN,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SHERIFF L. C. KNIGHT; MAJOR RICHARD DARLINGTON,
Defendants.
No. 22-6086
JAMARV PAREMORE HAMMOND, also known as Jamarv P. Hammond,
#265009,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF L. C. KNIGHT; MAJOR R. DARLINGTON; LIEUTENANT
BRANCH; JOHN DOE, Transportation Sgt.; SHERIFF AL CANON; CHIEF
DEPUTY WILLIS BEATTY; MAJOR HARRIS; MAJOR GRANT; CAPTAIN
SALTERS; LT. LUKE; LT. DRISCOLL; SGT. GLADDEN; SGT. SHEPPARD,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:20-cv-03113-JFA, 4:20-cv-
03114-JFA)
Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022
Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamarv Paremore Hammond, Appellant Pro Se. George Buist Smythe, Jr., Mount Pleasant,
South Carolina; J.W. Nelson Chandler, CHANDLER & DUDGEON LLC, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Jamarv Paremore Hammond, a federal inmate, seeks
to appeal the district court’s denials of relief in two civil actions. “[T]he timely filing of a
notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.
205, 214 (2007). Parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment
or order to note an appeal in a civil case, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district
court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). A district court may reopen the appeal period under Rule
4(a)(6) if (1) the party moving for reopening did not receive notice of the entry of the
judgment or order sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry; (2) the motion to reopen
is filed within 180 days after the entry of the judgment or order, or within 14 days after
receiving notice of such entry, whichever is earlier; and (3) a reopening would not prejudice
any party.
In Case No. 22-6084, the district court accepted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and awarded summary judgment to the defendants in an order entered on
November 29, 2021. And in Case No. 22-6086, the district court accepted the magistrate
judge’s recommendations and denied relief on Hammond’s complaint in an order entered
on September 29, 2021. Hammond noted an appeal in each case on January 11, 2022.1
Thus, in each case, Hammond’s appeal was filed after the 30-day appeal period expired.
1 We assume that the dates appearing on Hammond’s notices of appeal are the
earliest dates that he could have provided them to prison officials for mailing to the district
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Hammond stated in each notice of appeal, however, that he did not receive the district
court’s final order until January 6, 2022.
Because Hammond’s notices of appeal informed the district court that he wished to
appeal and that he did not receive the court’s final orders until January 6, we construe them
as motions to reopen the appeal period. We therefore remand to the district court for the
limited purpose of determining whether Hammond is entitled to a reopening of the appeal
period pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6) in one or both cases.2 The records, as supplemented, will
then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
2 We defer ruling on Hammond’s motions to appoint counsel and to forgo service
on other parties.

-- 4 of 4 --