Buckom v. O'Konek ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-7117
    GARY D. BUCKOM,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    CARLA O’KONEK,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    No. 99-7463
    GARY D. BUCKOM,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    CARLA O’KONEK,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
    trict Judge. (CA-99-178-5-BR)
    Submitted:   December 16, 1999         Decided:     December 21, 1999
    Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
    cuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gary D. Buckom, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Gary D. Buckom seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
    lifting a stay (No. 99-7117), and denying relief on his habeas
    corpus petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West 1994 & Supp.
    1999) (No. 99-7463). Buckom claims that the district court did not
    have jurisdiction to enter a final order in this case based on his
    appeal of the order lifting the stay. However, Buckom’s interlocu-
    tory notice of appeal did not divest the district court of juris-
    diction to enter a final decision in this case.    See Cochran v.
    Birkel, 
    651 F.2d 1219
    , 1221-22 (6th Cir. 1981).   We have reviewed
    the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no
    reversible error in the lifting of the stay or the denial of his
    habeas corpus petition.   Further, the district court correctly
    noted that Buckom’s access to the courts claims are more properly
    raised in a complaint under 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
     (West Supp. 1999).
    Accordingly, we deny Buckom’s motion for a certificate of appeal-
    ability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district
    court. See Buckom v. O’Konek, No. CA-99-178-5-BR (E.D.N.C. July 27
    & Sept. 28, 1999).   We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
    rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-7117

Filed Date: 12/21/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014