Case Name: James Bell McCOY, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-10
Citations: 561 F. App'x 432
Docket Number: No. 13-10995
Parties: James Bell McCOY, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 561
Pages: 432–432

Head Matter:
James Bell McCOY, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-10995
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 10, 2014.
James Bell McCoy, Sr., Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.
Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Bell McCoy, Sr., Texas prisoner # 1299701, proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, appeals the denial of his motion to recuse the district judge who presided over two matters in which McCoy challenged a state-court conviction. The court denied the motion because the case was closed and on appeal to this court.
"[T]he filing of a valid notice of appeal from a final order of the district court divests that court of jurisdiction to act on the matters involved in the appeal, except to aid the appeal, correct clerical errors, or enforce its judgment". Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 751 (5th Cir.2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). McCoy filed his motion to recuse after filing notices of appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and the denial of his motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the recusal motion.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.