ORDER

MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Petitioner's "Motion for Restoration of Appellate Rights Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)" [Doc. 53]; the Petitioner's "Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" [Doc. 54]; and the Petitioner's "Motion for Summary Judgment" [Doc. 55].

The Petitioner moves pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to reopen this proceeding and restore his rights to file a direct appeal. [Doc. 53]. For grounds, the Petitioner argues that his appellate counsel failed to raise "critical claims" on his direct appeal. [Id. at 14].

The Petitioner's attack on the performance of his appellate counsel is an issue that could have been addressed in his § 2255 proceeding. Accordingly, the Court will treat his Rule 60(b) motion as a motion brought pursuant to Section 2255. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005) ("Virtually every Court of Appeals to consider the question has held that such a pleading, although labeled a Rule 60(b) motion, is in substance a successive habeas petition and should be treated accordingly."); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2003) ("a motion directly attacking the prisoner's conviction or sentence will usually amount to a successive application.").

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, provides that a "prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress . . . may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The AEDPA, however, provides a specific limitation on a prisoner's ability to bring a second, or successive motion under § 2255. Specifically, the AEDPA provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

The Petitioner has not provided any evidence that he has secured authorization from the Fourth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion. Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the present § 2255 motion and it will be dismissed. Therefore, the Petitioner's request "for summary judgment" on his Rule 60(b) motion is also denied. Finally, as filing fees are not required for § 2255 proceedings, the Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as well.

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (holding that when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the correctness of the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatably valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Petitioner's "Motion for Restoration of Appellate Rights Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)" [Doc. 53]; the Petitioner's "Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" [Doc. 54]; and the Petitioner's "Motion for Summary Judgment" [Doc. 55] are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.