Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Buckom v. O'Konek, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Gary Buckom's appeals of a district court's orders lifting a stay on his habeas corpus petition and denying relief on the petition. The appeals court found that Buckom's interlocutory appeal did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to issue a final ruling. The appeals court also agreed with the district court that Buckom's access to courts claims were more appropriately raised in a civil rights action rather than a habeas petition. The appeals were dismissed without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-12-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7117

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Gary Buckom's appeals of a district court's orders lifting a stay on his habeas corpus petition and denying relief on the petition. The appeals court found that Buckom's interlocutory appeal did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to issue a final ruling. The appeals court also agreed with the district court that Buckom's access to courts claims were more appropriately raised in a civil rights action rather than a habeas petition. The appeals were dismissed without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views3 pages

    Buckom v. O'Konek, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Gary Buckom's appeals of a district court's orders lifting a stay on his habeas corpus petition and denying relief on the petition. The appeals court found that Buckom's interlocutory appeal did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to issue a final ruling. The appeals court also agreed with the district court that Buckom's access to courts claims were more appropriately raised in a civil rights action rather than a habeas petition. The appeals were dismissed without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7117

    GARY D. BUCKOM,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    CARLA OKONEK,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    No. 99-7463

    GARY D. BUCKOM,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    CARLA OKONEK,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-178-5-BR)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 1999

    Decided:

    December 21, 1999

    Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit 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 courts 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, Buckoms interlocutory notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction to enter a final decision in this case.
    Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1221-22 (6th Cir. 1981).

    See Cochran v.
    We have reviewed

    the record and the district courts 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 Buckoms 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 Buckoms motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district
    court. See Buckom v. OKonek, 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like