
    Robert Clayton CAUDELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD STAFF; Central Classification Board, for the Department of Corrections; Portsmouth Virginia Circuit Court, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 04-6878.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 17, 2004.
    Decided Oct. 4, 2004.
    Robert Clayton Caudell, Appellant pro se.
    Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Robert Clayton Caudell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his successive petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Caudell has not made the requisite showing. To the extent that Caudell’s notice of appeal and appellate brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 motion, we deny authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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  