Michael Page seeks to appeal from the district court’s order finding that his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) was successive and dismissing it without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. * 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap *566 pealability 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 Page has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

To the extent that Page’s notice of appeal and appellate brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. See 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