Stephen Kilpatrick v. Joseph Walters

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6855 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/31/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6855

STEPHEN JAMES KILPATRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOSEPH WALTERS, Director, VA Dept. of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:24-cv-00757-EKD-CKM)

Submitted: March 26, 2026 Decided: March 31, 2026

Before RICHARDSON and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen James Kilpatrick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6855 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/31/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Stephen James Kilpatrick seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time barred. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kilpatrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Kilpatrick’s motion for 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