Case Name: George C. SMALL, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTSMOUTH CITY JAIL, Superintendent; Major Bullock, Deputy Sheriff; Captain Banks, Internal Affairs; Gary Waters, Sheriff; Deputy Tolbert; Deputy Bell; Deputy Constantides; Deputy Flynn; Deputy Montangue; Deputy Thomas; Deputy Patrick; Deputy Croft, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-07
Citations: 28 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 01-7609
Parties: George C. SMALL, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTSMOUTH CITY JAIL, Superintendent; Major Bullock, Deputy Sheriff; Captain Banks, Internal Affairs; Gary Waters, Sheriff; Deputy Tolbert; Deputy Bell; Deputy Constantides; Deputy Flynn; Deputy Montangue; Deputy Thomas; Deputy Patrick; Deputy Croft, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 28
Pages: 282–282

Head Matter:
George C. SMALL, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTSMOUTH CITY JAIL, Superintendent; Major Bullock, Deputy Sheriff; Captain Banks, Internal Affairs; Gary Waters, Sheriff; Deputy Tolbert; Deputy Bell; Deputy Constantides; Deputy Flynn; Deputy Montangue; Deputy Thomas; Deputy Patrick; Deputy Croft, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7609.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 28, 2002.
Decided Feb. 7, 2002.
George C. Small, III, Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
George C. Small appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Small v. Portsmouth City Jail, No. CA-99-903-AM (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 15, 2001 & entered Aug. 16, 2001). We deny Small's motions for appointment of counsel and for oral argument. 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.
Small complains that the district court erred in assessing his claim under the Eighth Amendment. However, the deliberate indifference standard has been applied to determine a Fourteenth Amendment violation as well. Belcher v. Oliver, 898 F.2d 32, 34 (4th Cir.1990); see Brown v. Harris, 240 F.3d 383, 388 n. 6 (4th Cir.2001) (noting that Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), framework has been applied to cases involving pretrial detainees).