Michael Todd Hancock v. B. WATSON, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8094
MICHAEL TODD HANCOCK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
B. WATSON, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; GENE JOHNSON,
Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondents – Appellees.
No. 09-8200
MICHAEL TODD HANCOCK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
B. WATSON, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; GENE JOHNSON,
Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cv-00247-RGD-TEM)
Submitted: May 19, 2010 Decided: June 10, 2010

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Todd Hancock, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Michael Todd Hancock
appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing without
prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The orders are
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
certificates of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2006). 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) (2006). Where, 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484-85 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Hancock has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, in each appeal, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny all motions
pending in each case, including the motions to proceed in forma
pauperis, the motions to compel copies, and the motions to waive
copies. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --