UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT A. DOZIER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BERNARD F. FORD, Correctional

Officer II; LEE R. CARTER,

Correctional Officer III; GREGORY

TAYLOR, Correctional Officer II;

MALCOLM REDD, Correctional No. 95-7037

Officer I; ANTHONY SMITH,

Correctional Officer II,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

LIEUTENANT MORGAN; SERGEANT

AUSTEN,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge;

John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.

(CA-93-1668-HAR)

Submitted: March 26, 1996

Decided: April 17, 1996

Before HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL

Robert A. Dozier, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Amy Kushner Kline, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert A. Dozier appeals from a magistrate judge's* order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the magistrate judge's order, and find no reversible

error.

Dozier alleged that various correctional officers used excessive

force when they forcibly extracted him from his cell. After a bench

trial the magistrate judge made the following findings. Dozier was

issued two notices of infraction on May 28, 1993. As a result of the

infractions, Dozier was ordered to be placed in administrative segregation. When Dozier refused to be handcuffed for his transfer, an

extraction team was assembled to transport Dozier to administrative

segregation. Dozier resisted and the officers used limited force to

extract Dozier. Further, Dozier's injuries, although not de minimis,

were far less severe than those he would have received had he been

subjected to the force that he claimed was used. Finally, due to several inconsistencies in Dozier's version of the events, the magistrate

judge found Dozier not to be entirely credible.

_________________________________________________________________

*All parties consented to a trial by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993).

 2
We reject Dozier's claim that he was subjected to excessive force

during this incident because the magistrate judge's findings of fact are

not clearly erroneous. Further, those findings support the legal conclusion that the Defendants did not apply force maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Williams v. Benjamin,

___ F.3d ___, 1996 WL 95108 (4th Cir. Mar. 6, 1996) (No. 94-7122).

We, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the magistrate judge.

Because the appeal presents no complex issues, we deny Dozier's

motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED

 3