Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0320-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Todd HANCOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B. WATSON, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees. Michael Todd Hancock, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B. Watson, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
    Nos. 09-8094, 09-8200.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 19, 2010.
    Decided: June 10, 2010.
    Michael Todd Hancock, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 ap-pealability. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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.