Frank Paulding Scott v. Edward W. Murray, 35 F.3d 556 (4th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Frank Paulding Scott v. Edward W. Murray, 35 F.3d 556 (4th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“suit seeking a military discharge upgrade is not for money damages, even though an upgrade would entitle the recipient to payment for leave accrued at the time of discharge.”
49 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Coleman v. Wilson (ncwd, 2022-03-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Coleman v. Wilson
W.D.N.C. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
suit seeking a military discharge upgrade is not for money damages, even though an upgrade would entitle the recipient to payment for leave accrued at the time of discharge.
cited Cited as authority (rule) American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. McMahon
D. Maryland · 2025 · confidence medium
Va. 2023) (quoting Powe v. Sec’y of Navy, 35 F.3d 556, at *2 (4th Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision)); see Roetenberg v. Sec’y of Air Force, 73 F. Supp. 2d 631, 636 (E.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harrison v. Kendall, III
E.D. Va. · 2023 · confidence medium
Nonetheless, “[a] suit which does not seek monetary damages does not arise under the Tucker Act simply because the plaintiff's success will result in eventual monetary gain from the government.” Powe v. Sec’y of Navy, 35 F.3d 556, at *2 (4th Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision).
discussed Cited "see" Sulma Guandique-De Romero v. Pamela Bondi
4th Cir. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
“Whether the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel rises to the level of a due process violation presents a mixed question of law and fact, and is therefore subject to de novo review.” Figeroa v. I.N.S., 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989); see Gidiglo v. I.N.S., 35 F.3d 556 , 1994 WL 478106, at *1 (4th Cir. 1994) (unpublished per curiam table decision) (applying de novo review to an IAC claim in a motion to reopen while reviewing other arguments for abuse of discretion); Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 153, 163 (3d Cir. 2007) (reviewing de novo an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel c…
cited Cited "see" SG Homes Associates, LP v. Michael Marinucci
4th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parris v. Lynch, 35 F.3d 556 (table), 1994 WL 486549, at *1 (4th Cir.1994) (“assessing the weight of evidence and the credibility of witnesses is within the sole province of the fact-finder”).
discussed Cited "see" Afanwi v. Mukasey
4th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gidiglo v. I.N.S., 35 F.3d 556 (Table) (4th Cir.1994) (unpublished) (affirming BIA’s denial of alien’s motion to reopen based on attorney’s failure to file timely petition for review, on ground that alien had not demonstrated prejudice as required by Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988)); see also Sako v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 857, 862-66 (6th Cir.2006) (same); Ljucovic v. Gonzales, 144 Fed.Appx. 500 (6th Cir.2005) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank Paulding Scott
v.
Edward W. Murray
94-6116.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Sep 2, 1994.
35 F.3d 556
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 68%
Citer courts: W.D. North Carolina (1)

35 F.3d 556

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.
Frank Paulding SCOTT, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Respondent Appellee.

No. 94-6116.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 19, 1994.
Decided Sept. 2, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-44).

Frank Paulding Scott, appellant Pro Se.

Thomas Cauthorne Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, VA, for appellee.

W.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Scott v. Murray, No. Ca-93-44 (W.D.Va. Jan. 7, 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.

2

DISMISSED.