Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08200/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08200-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Todd Hancock
Appellant
Gene Johnson
Appellee
B. Watson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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

Appeal: 09-8200 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8200 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 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

Appeal: 09-8200 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 3 of 3