_____________ No. 95-3468EA

_____________ Joe L. Bumgarner, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * B. B. Malin; David Guntharp, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: September 3, 1996 Filed: September 26, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.

Joe L. Bumgarner, an inmate at an Arkansas correctional facility , appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Bumgarner alleged that correctional officials failed to provide sa fe and orderly housing, an adequate exercise program, and an adequate law library. The district cour t appointed an expert witness to investigate and r eport on conditions at the facility. After two pretrial hearings, the dist rict court concluded there was no evidence of constitutional violations and dismissed Bumgarner' s action. We affirm.
The dis trict court did not abuse its discretion in choosing not t o appoint counsel for Bumgarner. See Edgington v. Missouri Dep't o f Corrections , 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review)
. Bumgar ner's case was not legally or factually complex, and Bumgarne r presen ted his arguments intelligibly when he testified at the firs t pretrial hearing. See id. (listing factors

### -2-

bearin g on appointment of counsel for indigent civil litigants)
. Similarly, the distri ct court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to call Bumgarner's witn esses at the second pretrial hearing. See Salaam v. Lockhart , 856 F.2d 11 20, 1124 (8th Cir. 1988) (district court may exclude cumulative testimony) . Bumgarner's assertion that the judge had ex parte communications with opposing counsel is unsubstantiated.
Turni ng to Bumgarner's substantive claims, we review the distric t court's findings of fact for clear error, Choate v. Lockhart , 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 n.1 (8th Cir. 1993), and its legal conclusions de novo, Whitmore v. Gaines , 24 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1994). Bumgarner failed to show any injury from shortcomings in the correctional facility's law library an d thus suffered no inroad on his right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey , 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996). Bumgarner also failed to show tha t the correctional officials were deliberately indifferent to his exercise needs. See Wishon v. Gammon , 978 F.2d 446, 448-49 (8th Cir. 1992). The district court disbelieved Bumgarner's complaints about barrack s conditions, finding t he facility to be one of the safest and most livable correctional units in Arkansas. The court reaso nably based its finding on the testimony of its appointed expert witness, which the court chose t o credit over Bumgarner's conflicting testimony. We do not second-guess the distri ct court's credibility assessments on appeal. United States v
. Wilson , 49 F.3d 406, 409 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 384 (1995).

We reject Bumgarner's remaining challenges to the district court' s ruling because they a re either without merit or raised for the first time on appeal. United States v. Dixon , 51 F.3d 1376, 1383 (8th Cir. 1995). We thus affirm the judgment of the district court.

### -3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.