PER CURIAM:

Justin Deonta Strom appeals the district court’s order construing his postjudgment motion, which Strom styled as an “Indictment Challenge,” as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. ^[*] Although the district court dismissed the motion without prejudice, we conclude that the order is final and appealable. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC , 959 F.3d 605, 610-12 (4th Cir. 2020) (discussing factors this court considers in determining whether order is final and appealable), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021). Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Strom’s filing as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because Strom failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); McRae , 793 F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Strom’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Strom’s claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

*3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

[*] A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a postjudgment motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).