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UNPUBLISHED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 3 --

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: May 6, 2024 Decided: June 24, 2024
Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamarv Paremore Hammond, Appellant Pro Se. George Buist Smythe, Jr., WOOD SMITH
HENNING & BERMAN, LLP, Charleston, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Jamarv Paremore Hammond seeks to appeal the
district court’s denial of relief in two civil actions. We previously remanded these cases to
the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Hammond was entitled to
a reopening of the appeal period pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), in one or both cases.
Hammond v. Burns, Nos. 22-6084/6086, 2022 WL 2951775, at *1 (4th Cir. July 26, 2022).
On remand, the district court entered an order reopening the appeal period in each case.
But Hammond filed nothing in the district court or this court that could be construed as a
notice of appeal within 14 days of the district court entering its reopening orders. We
therefore lack jurisdiction over these appeals. See Parrish v. United States, 74 F.4th 160,
165-67 (4th Cir. 2023) (holding that appellant must file new notice of appeal within 14
days of district court’s reopening order and that appellant cannot rely on previously filed
notice of appeal that was construed as motion to reopen).
Accordingly, we dismiss Hammond’s appeals. We also deny Hammond’s motion
to appoint counsel and deny as moot Hammond’s motion to forgo service on other parties.
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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --