Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

88-7150 (1988)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 88-7150 Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 04, 1988
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 862 F.2d 313 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Karl Thomas BELFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, D.A. Garraghty, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Chairman and Members of ICC, Nottoway Correctional Center, M. Samburg,
More

862 F.2d 313
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Karl Thomas BELFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, D.A. Garraghty, Warden,
Nottoway Correctional Center, Chairman and Members of ICC,
Nottoway Correctional Center, M. Samburg, Warden, Virginia
State Penitentiary, Chairman and Members of ICC, Virginia
State Penitentiary, J. Johnson, Warden, Buckingham
Correctional Center, B.W. Soles, Chairman, and Members of
ICC, Buckingham Correctional Center, Chairman and Members of
CCB, Richmond, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-7150.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 1988.
Decided Nov. 4, 1988.

Karl Thomas Belfield, appellant pro se.

William W. Muse, Office of Attorney General of Virginia), for appellees.

Before ERVIN, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Karl Thomas Belfield appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Belfield v. Virginia Department of Corrections, C/A No. 87-470-N (E.D.Va. May 12, 1988). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

2

AFFIRMED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer