Derek Marquis Fleming seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his motion to correct a clerical error in the judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 36, which the district court construed as a successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. He also appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Fleming’s preliminary informal brief on appeal and conclude that Fleming has not made the requisite showing. To the extent Fleming’s notice of appeal and appellate brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such 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 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