Case Name: John Edward KUPLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank PERRY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-29
Citations: 608 F. App'x 158
Docket Number: No. 15-6163
Parties: John Edward KUPLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 158–158

Head Matter:
John Edward KUPLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6163.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2015.
Decided: June 29, 2015.
John Edward Kuplen, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. The orders are 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.