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

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6355
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: July 29, 2025 Decided: August 1, 2025
Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Najarred T. Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Najarred T. Walker seeks to appeal an order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition. Though that order was issued by this court, Walker seems to believe it was issued
by the district court. For the reasons that follow, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss Walker’s appeal as duplicative.
The district court dismissed Walker’s § 2254 petition in September 2023. Walker
appealed and, in November 2024, this court denied a certificate of appealability and
dismissed Walker’s appeal. Walker v. Bishop, No. 23-7138, 2024 WL 4850767 (4th Cir.
Nov. 21, 2024) (denying certificate of appealability and dismissing appeal). In December
2024, Walker filed a second notice of appeal in the district court, again seeking relief from
the district court’s September 2023 order dismissing his § 2254 petition. On April 15,
2025, this court dismissed Walker’s second appeal as both duplicative and untimely.
Walker v. Bishop, No. 24-7209, 2025 WL 1111478 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 2025). A few days
later, Walker filed a third notice of appeal in the district court, resulting in the instant
appeal.
In his informal brief, Walker states that he is seeking to appeal an April 15, 2025,
order by the district court; however, the April 15 order to which Walker is apparently
referring was an order issued by this court dismissing Walker’s second appeal. Walker has
twice unsuccessfully sought to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition, and
he may not do so again. Because this appeal is once again duplicative, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --