Buckom v. O'Konek
Buckom v. O'Konek
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
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
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.