Rueben S. Morales v. E. W. Murray, Dir. Attorney Gen., Commonwealth of Virginia, 823 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Rueben S. Morales v. E. W. Murray, Dir. Attorney Gen., Commonwealth of Virginia, 823 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kiley v. First National Bank (mdctspecapp, 1994-11-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Kiley v. First National Bank
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Union Trust Co. of Md. v. Charter Medical Corp., 663 F.Supp. 175 ,178 n. 4 (D.Md.1986) aff'd w/o opinion, 823 F.2d 548 (4th Cir.1987).
cited Cited "see" G & M OIL CO. v. Glenfed Financial Corp.
D. Maryland · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Union Trust Co. v. Charter Medical Corp., 663 F.Supp. 175 (D.Md.1986), aff'd, 823 F.2d 548 (4th Cir.1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In the Matter of Rodney Dale Coston and Billie Katherine Coston, Debtors. Rodney Dale Coston and Billie Katherine Coston v. Bank of Malvern
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 290-93 , 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1791-93 , 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); see also In re Allen, 65 B.R. 752, 767 (E.D.Va.1986) (remanding case so that bankruptcy court, which erroneously concluded that creditors had a per se duty to verify the accuracy of a financial statement under section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii), could hear more evidence and make further findings under the correct legal standard), appeal dismissed, 823 F.2d 548 (4th Cir.1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Coston v. Bank of Malvern (In Re Coston)
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 290-93 , 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1791-93 , 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); see also In re Allen, 65 B.R. 752, 767 (E.D.Va.1986) (remanding case so that bankruptcy court, which erroneously concluded that creditors had a per se duty to verify the accuracy of a financial statement under section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii), could hear more evidence and make further findings under the correct legal standard), appeal dismissed, 823 F.2d 548 (4th Cir.1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rueben S. Morales
v.
E. W. Murray, Director Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia
87-7148.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 6, 1987.
823 F.2d 548
Unpublished

823 F.2d 548
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.
Rueben S. MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
E. W. MURRAY, Director; Attorney General, Commonwealth of
Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 87-7148

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 1987.
Decided July 6, 1987.

Rueben S. Morales, appellant pro se.

Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, for appellees.

Before RUSSELL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Rueben Morales, a Virginia inmate, filed this habeas petition alleging that he was denied a 'full and fair' parole hearing. The case was consensually referred to a magistrate for review. The magistrate properly concluded that Morales had failed to exhaust his state remedies and dismissed the petition. Morales appealed.[*]

2

A review of the record and the magistate's opinion discloses that an appeal from his order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 would be without merit. Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, dispense with oral argument, and dismiss the appeal.

3

DISMISSED.

*

Prior to the magistrate's dismissal of the habeas petition, Morales sent a letter to the court indicating that he had not received proper medical treatment. Morales did not request that his prior petition be amended or that he be allowed to file a separate Sec. 1983 action. These claims were not properly presented for review below; thus, it is not necessary for this Court to address them at this time. See Rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P