by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Edwards Monroe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. The district court properly characterized this motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, we construe Monroe’s notice of
holding that a rule 60b motion ordinarily should be treated as a successive habeas petition but declining to adopt a bright line rule equating all rule 60b motions with successive habeas petitions holding that motion filed under fedrcivp 60b properly construed as successive  2255 motion holding that district courts may properly treat rule 60b motions as successive habeas petitions holding that a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district court dismisses a rule 60b motion as an unauthorized successive habeas motion holding that motion for reconsideration would be construed not as a rule 60b motion but rather as an unauthorized successive motion under  2255 which the district court may have been without jurisdiction to consider