Karl X. Belfield v. H. Chapman, Correctional Officer E. Smith, Correctional Officer Mr. Mayes, Correctional Officer D.R. Lawson, Warden at Southampton Correctional Center

Check Treatment

Related Cases

Aaron Holsey v. B.C.C.C., Warden, Individually and Officially, Commissioner of Correction, Individually and Officially, Corrections Transportation Unit, Kelley, Individually, and as Shift Commander on 2 Pm to 10 Pm Shift at Brockbridge Prison, William D. Schaefer, Richard A. Lanham, Individually, and as Commissioner of Correction, Kenneth Taylor, Individually, and as Warden of the House of Correction, Field Moore, Individually, and as Assistant Warden at Brockbridge, Doe, Individually, and as Shift Commander of 6 Am to 2 Pm Shift at Brockbridge Prison, Wells, Individually, and as Shift Commander on 2 Pm to 10 Pm Shift at Brockbridge Prison, Jacqueline Floyd, Individually, and as a Sergeant Assigned to B.C.C.C., Glassco, Individually, and as Prison Guard at B.C.C.C., Bishop L. Robinson, Individually, and as Secretary of Department of the Division of Corrections, Lehman Dotson, Individually, and as Supervisor of Classification at Brockbridge, Michael Wells, Individually, and as Classification Counselor at the Brockbridge Prison, William D. Filbert, Jr., Individually, and as Assistant Warden of the Brockbridge Prison, William L. Smith, Hollis S. Thompson, Fred Lawson, Individually and in Official Capacity, Thomas R. Corcoran, Individually, and as Warden of Brockbridge Prison, Martin, Individually, and as Property Officer at Brockbridge Prison, William Britton, Individually, and as Supervisor of Classifiction at Brockbridge
Harold J. Southall v. Patrick Kemmerer, Sergeant, Roxbury Correctional Institution Robert Haines, Correctional Officer, Roxbury Correctional Institution David Rizer, Correctional Officer, Roxbury Correctional Institution Michael Swickard, Correctional Officer, Roxbury Correctional Institution Tyrone Haines, Hearing Officer Steven Baker, Lieutenant, Roxbury Correctional Institution Jon Galley, Warden, Roxbury Correctional Institution
Andrew Belfield v. Southampton Correctional Center, Department of I.C.C.
Andrew Highsmith v. Jerry Pulley, Correctional Officer, R.H. Gosney, Correctional Officer, N. Watson, Correctional Officer, R.A. Clary, Correctional Officer
Aaron Holsey v. S. Baker, Individually and as a Correctional Officer, C.O. Ii, McTc R.C. Deshong, Individually and as a Sergeant, McTc Mosier, Individually and as Correctional Officer, C.O. Ii, McTc Zell Williams, Individually and as a Disciplinary Hearing Officer Assigned to the Division of Corrections Headquarters Wayne Winebrenner, Individually and as Warden of the Eastern Correctional Institution Merry Coplin, Individually and as Warden of the Maryland Reception Diagnostic and Classification Center Name Unknown, Individually and as Commander of the 4 P.M. To 12 A.M. Shift at the Eastern Correctional Institution Name Unknown, Individually and as Commander of the D.O.C. Transportation Unit

76 F.3d 371

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) 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 X. BELFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
H. CHAPMAN, Correctional Officer; E. Smith, Correctional
Officer; Mr. Mayes, Correctional Officer; D.R.
Lawson, Warden at Southampton
Correctional Center,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-7985.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 1996.
Decided: February 8, 1996.

Karl X. Belfield, Appellant Pro Se.

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's order. 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