Case Name: Jimmy D. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve LOFTIS; Mike Gardner; Jeffrey Arledge; Derrick Pendergrass; John Doe, 1-12 Officers; Greenville County Sheriffs Office, Sued in their individual and official capacities; South Carolina Highway Patrol Headquarters District Three, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-18
Citations: 141 F. App'x 178
Docket Number: No. 05-6424
Parties: Jimmy D. JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steve LOFTIS; Mike Gardner; Jeffrey Arledge; Derrick Pendergrass; John Doe, 1-12 Officers; Greenville County Sheriffs Office, Sued in their individual and official capacities; South Carolina Highway Patrol Headquarters District Three, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
Jimmy D. JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steve LOFTIS; Mike Gardner; Jeffrey Arledge; Derrick Pendergrass; John Doe, 1-12 Officers; Greenville County Sheriffs Office, Sued in their individual and official capacities; South Carolina Highway Patrol Headquarters District Three, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-6424.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 18, 2005.
Jimmy D. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., Clarkson, Walsh, Rheney & Turner, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy D. Jones appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because Jones' excessive force claims lack merit under the Eighth, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Loftisd, No. CA-03-3098-25BD, 2005 WL 1992519 (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2005). We deny Jones' 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