John Cox v. Carlos Bivens

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 25-6773
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6773 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6773

JOHN COX,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN CARLOS BIVENS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01942-TDC)

Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Cox, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6773 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

John Cox seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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 Cox has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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