* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-40533

Summary Calendar

_____________________

GETZELL JOHNSON MURRELL, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FELIX THOMPSON, Court Reporter for the 3rd

Judicial District Court, Anderson County,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(6 95-CV-28)

_________________________________________________________________ October 30, 1995

Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Getzell Johnson Murrell appeals the decision of the district

court to administratively close his case until he returns to Texas.

We affirm, although for a different reason than that given by the

district court.

Murrell is a federal prisoner incarcerated in t he federal

facility located in Florence, Colorado. He filed a civil rights2

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a court reporter, Felix

Thompson, alleging that Thompson violated the Court Reporter Act;

denied Murrell access to the courts; and violated his due process

rights by refusing to respond to Murrell's inquiries and requests

for transcripts of two Texas state criminal proceedings. Murrell

pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and capital murder in

Anderson County, Texas, state court proceedings, Docket Nos. 22779

and 22980. Murrell states that he "waived appeal." Murrell

attempted to contact Thompson by telephone and by letter to order

the transcripts of the proceeding s and indicated that he was

willing to pay the cost of the transcripts. Th ompson did not

respond to Murrell's inquiries. On September 12, 1994, Murrell

sent a certified letter to Thompson, explaining that he had

attempted to order the transcript on numero us occasions without

response and threatening to file a lawsuit against Thompson if he

failed to respond. Thompson responded by letter stating that he

w ould get back to Murrell soon. W hen Thompson again failed to

respond or provide the reques ted transcripts, Murrell filed this

action on January 19, 1995.

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that

Murrell's action be administratively closed due to Mu rrell's

extended out-of-state residency. T he distric t court adopted the

magistrate judge's findings and conclusions as correct, and ordered

that the case be administratively closed. Murrell timely filed a

notice of appeal.

Murrell contends that the district court erred in3

administrativ ely closing his action solely because he does not

presently reside in the state of Texas. He maintains that the

indefinite stay of the proceedings in this case would effectively

deny him access to the courts as he will be incarcerated in the

federal facility located in Colorado for approximately the next 25

years. He maintains that such a lengthy stay would significantly

prejudice his ability to litigate his claim.

The district court's order administratively closing the case

is the equivalent of a final judgment. S ee Johnson v. State of

Texas

, 878 F.2d 904, 905 (5th Cir. 1989) (order holding case in

abeyance was appealable under collateral order doctrine of Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.

, 33 7 U.S. 541 (1949)). Therefore,

this court has jurisdiction to review the district court's order.

Murrell alleges a denial of due process because Thompson has

prevented him from either purchasing or obtaining a free transcript

of his state court proceedings. Murrell has not alleged any

constitutional violations affecting the validity of his convictions

or sentences. He merely asserts that he has a constitutional right

to obtain a state-court transcript to determine whether it contains

any errors.

O n direct appeal, a convicted defendant has the right to

obtain a trial transcript or an alternative d evice that fulfills

the same function as a transcript. Griffin v. Illinois , 351 U.S.

12, 18-20 (1956). However, as noted above, Murrell waived his

right to appeal the state convictions and sentences. Murrell has

failed to demonstrate that he has been deprived of a constitutional4

right as the result of the unavai lability of the transcript.

Murrell does not have a constitutional right to obtain a statecourt transcript to conduct a "fishing expedition" to seek out

possible trial errors. See Jackson v. Estelle , 672 F.2d 505, 506

(5th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). Because Murrell has not

alleged the deprivation of a federal constitu tional or statutory

right, he is not entitled to either habeas or civil rights relief.

See Thomas v. Torres , 717 F.2d 248, 248-49 (5th Cir. 1983), cert.

denied

, 456 U.S. 1010 (1984) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal).

We AFFIRM the district court's decision on the alternative

ground that Murrell is not entitled to relief under § 1983

.

Murrell has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) on appeal. Murrell's motion is DENIED as unnecessary because

the district court granted his motion for leave to proceed IFP on

appeal.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.