Najarred Walker v. Frank Bishop

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7209 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7209 NAJARRED T. WALKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN FRANK B. BISHOP; MARYLAND ATTORNEY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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7209 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/15/2025 Pg: 2 of 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