# Belfield v. Jackson

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 24, 1994 · 25 F.3d 1038

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/670843

## Case

- **Full name:** Karl Thomas Belfield, A/K/A Karl X. Belfield v. Clarence L. Jackson, Jr. Lewis W. Hurst John A. Brown Gail Y. Browne Jacqueline F. Fraser Edward Murray, Director of Department of Corrections
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 24, 1994
- **Citations:** 25 F.3d 1038; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 20785; 1994 WL 202499
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/670843

## Opinion text

25 F.3d 1038
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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, a/k/a Karl X. Belfield, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Clarence L. JACKSON, Jr.; Lewis W. Hurst; John A. Brown;
Gail Y. Browne; Jacqueline F. Fraser; Edward
Murray, Director of Department of
Corrections, Defendants Appellees.
No. 94-6258.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 1994.
Decided: May 24, 1994.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-94-94-R)
Karl Thomas Belfield, Appellant Pro Se.
W.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Jackson, No. CA-94-94-R (W.D.Va. Feb. 16, 1994). 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.
AFFIRMED

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/670843. Public record. Not legal advice.