James Bowens v. Eric Rokosky

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 25-6443
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6443 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6443

JAMES BOWENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC ROKOSKY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Adam B. Abelson, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00115-ABA)

Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Bowens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6443 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

James Bowens, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged the execution of

his sentence. The district court dismissed Bowens’s § 2241 petition on the ground that

Bowens failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and

discern no reversable error. Bowens has not demonstrated either that he completed a

Residential Drug Abuse Program and sought a sentence reduction on that ground or that

the Bureau of Prisons denied a sentence reduction upon his completion of the program.

Thus, he has not shown that his petition is ripe. See Doe v. Virginia Dep’t of State Police,

713 F.3d 745, 758 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A claim should be dismissed as unripe if the plaintiff

has not yet suffered injury and any future impact remains wholly speculative.” (citation

modified)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Bowens’s petition

without prejudice on the ground that his claim is not yet ripe. See Moore v. Frazier, 941

F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that this court can affirm district court’s

dismissal order “on any ground apparent on the record”). 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.

AFFIRMED