John Edward Kuplen v. Frank Perry


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00078-WO-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999610763]. Mailed to: Kuplen. [15-6161]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6161 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/29/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6161 JOHN EDWARD KUPLEN, Petitioner – Appellant, v. FRANK PERRY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00078-WO-LPA) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 29, 2015 Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Edward Kuplen, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6161 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/29/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: John Edward Kuplen seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Kuplen’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition relating to a prison disciplinary conviction and denying his motion to alter or amend. judge The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue absent “a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kuplen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 Appeal: 15-6161 Doc: 9 adequately Filed: 06/29/2015 presented in the Pg: 3 of 3 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?