
    Michael O. DEVAUGHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mickey E. RAY, Warden of FCI-Edgefield; United States of America, Respondents—Appellees. Michael O. Devaughn, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Dan Dove, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    Nos. 04-6600, 04-6601.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 26, 2004.
    Decided Sept. 3, 2004.
    Michael O. DeVaughn, Appellant pro se.
    Before WIDENER and SHEDD, 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    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

Michael O. DeVaughn seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions in actions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The court dismissed the actions as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir.2004) (holding that appeal from the denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion in a habeas action requires a certificate of appealability). 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, 336-38, 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 De-Vaughn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability.

To the extent DeVaughn’s notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). 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 
      
      The actions were originally filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and have been consolidated on appeal.
     