Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07218/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Edward Kuplen
Appellant
Frank Perry
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7218

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-00598-WO-LPA)

Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: February 24, 2016

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Edward Kuplen, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7218 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John Edward Kuplen seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 

Appeal: 15-7218 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7218 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2016 Pg: 3 of 3