Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Marvin Nathaniel Demby, Petitioner-appellant, v. State of Maryland; Robert A. Harleson; Attorney General Ofthe State of Maryland, Respondents-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 955 F.2d 40
Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.Decided Feb. 19, 1992
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-91-1949-JFM)
Marvin Nathaniel Demby, appellant pro se.
John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Kreg Paul Greer, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.
D.Md.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Nathaniel Demby appeals from the district court's order refusing habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988). The district court dismissed Demby's petition without prejudice after determining that Claim 3 contained both exhausted and unexhausted subclaims. Although we agree with the district court that some of the claims stated in Demby's initial petition are unexhausted and that dismissal would normally be warranted under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982), Demby filed a timely request to withdraw his unexhausted claims which the district court apparently overlooked. We therefore reverse the district court's decision and remand this case for consideration of the merits of Demby's remaining claims. 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.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.