¶1 James Preston Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petitions. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Hayden, No. 5:06-cv-00479 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 28, 2007). 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.
¶2 AFFIRMED.
¶3 The district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to characterize the petitions as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions and to dismiss them because Smith failed to obtain authorization from this court to file successive § 2255 motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). The district court declined, however, to accept the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Smith’s claims as time-barred.