UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6126
BRANDON JEROD SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER OWENS; OFFICER DIXON; LIEUTENANT CARICO,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:13-cv-00060-SGW-PMS)
Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 10, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon Jerod Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Jerod Smith appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Owens, No.
7:13-cv-00060-SGW-PMS (W.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2013).
We note that our holding with respect to Smith’s
excessive force claim is determined by the deferential standard
of review. Following a bench trial, this court may reverse a
district court’s factual findings only if they are clearly
erroneous. Roanoke Cement Co. v. Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431, 433
(4th Cir. 2005). The area of the prison in which Smith alleges
the assault took place –- the kitchen hallway – is not covered
by the prison’s surveillance system, so the district court’s
findings as to the incident were necessarily based on
assessments of witness credibility. “[W]hen a district court's
factual finding in a bench trial is based upon assessments of
witness credibility, such finding is deserving of the highest
degree of appellate deference.” Evergreen Int’l, S.A. v.
Norfolk Dredging Co., 531 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the district
2
court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous, we must
affirm those findings and the judgment in favor of defendants.
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
3