Najarred T. Walker v. Warden Frank B. Bishop; Maryland Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7209
NAJARRED T. WALKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN FRANK B. BISHOP; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:20-cv-01076-TDC)
Submitted: April 10, 2025 Decided: April 15, 2025
Before WILKINSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Najarred T. Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Najarred T. Walker seeks to appeal, for the second time, the district court’s
September 2023 order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We dismiss
Walker’s appeal as both untimely and duplicative.
In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court
extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order dismissing Walker’s § 2254 petition was entered in
September 2023, and Walker filed his notice of appeal in December 2024, over one year
later. Moreover, this appeal is duplicative of Walker’s prior appeal from the same order.
Walker v. Bishop, No. 23-7138, 2024 WL 4850767 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2024) (denying
certificate of appealability and dismissing appeal). Because Walker failed to file the notice
of appeal within the applicable appeal period, and the appeal itself is duplicative, we deny
Walker’s motion for the appointment of counsel, 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

-- 2 of 2 --