Linwood Douglas Thorne appeals the district court’s order construing his motion for sentence review under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and subsequently dismissing the § 2255 motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because it was successive and unauthorized. 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 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims and any dispositive rulings are 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 Thorne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * We dispense with *337 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.