UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7412
ROBERT WATSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SERGEANT JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MICHAEL MOORE; GERALDINE MIRO; MR. NICHOLS;
MS. ROSS; MS. JOHNSON; CAPTAIN ALBRITTON; JOHN
SHU; D. L. SMITH; MR. COHEN; FRED BROWN,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-96-3371-4-19BE)
Submitted: May 12, 1998 Decided: June 30, 1998
Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Senn, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Watson appeals from the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magis-
trate judge’s report and recommendation and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the
district court. See Watson v. Johnson, No. CA-96-3371-4-19BE
(D.S.C. Sept. 15, 1997). We find that Watson failed to establish
that his placement in lock-up constituted an atypical and signif-
icant hardship. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
Accordingly, Watson’s due process claims are meritless. See id. We
find no merit to Watson’s claim that Officer Smith used excessive
force in detaining him after he broke loose from correction offi-
cers. Officer Smith’s actions were justified by conditions then
existing in the prison, including a near-riot and Watson’s own
actions in breaking free from the officers. See Whitley v. Albers,
475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). Further, we find that the magistrate
judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied Watson’s
discovery-related motions. See Strag v. Board of Trustees, 55 F.3d
943, 954 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating that denial of a discovery motion
does not constitute reversible error where the information sought
could not be used to defeat summary judgment). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
3
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4