Ancell Hamm v. Edward Rendell

OPINION

Ancell Hamm appeals the District Court’s order granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons below, we will affirm.

The procedural history of this case and the details of Hamm’s claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s thorough opinion, and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Hamm argued in his complaint that he was being subjected to involuntary servitude *245 because he was incarcerated -without being duly convicted of a crime. The Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of the appellees. The District Court adopted the Report & Recommendation and entered judgment against Hamm. Hamm filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Hamm argues in his brief that he has not been duly convicted of a crime. His argument is -without merit. He contends that his convictions were vacated by the state court. See Commonwealth v. Hamm, 474 Pa. 487, 378 A.2d 1219 (1977). However, he ignores the fact that his life sentences for two counts of first-degree murder were reimposed on remand and affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Commonwealth v. Hamm, 493 Pa. 223, 425 A.2d 744 (1981).

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s October 30, 2009, 2009 WL 3536631, judgment. Appellant’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.