Case Name: Thomas William BROWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve HARPER, Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team Police Officer; M.K. Cruickshank, Senior Trooper, Defendants-Appellees, and Kanawha County Sheriff's Department; D.G. Painter, Resources Officer; West Virginia State Police; State of West Virginia; Attorney General of the State of West Virginia; County of Kanawha, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-19
Citations: 82 F. App'x 852
Docket Number: No. 03-7005
Parties: Thomas William BROWNING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steve HARPER, Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team Police Officer; M.K. Cruickshank, Senior Trooper, Defendants—Appellees, and Kanawha County Sheriff’s Department; D.G. Painter, Resources Officer; West Virginia State Police; State of West Virginia; Attorney General of the State of West Virginia; County of Kanawha, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 852–852

Head Matter:
Thomas William BROWNING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steve HARPER, Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team Police Officer; M.K. Cruickshank, Senior Trooper, Defendants—Appellees, and Kanawha County Sheriff’s Department; D.G. Painter, Resources Officer; West Virginia State Police; State of West Virginia; Attorney General of the State of West Virginia; County of Kanawha, Defendants.
No. 03-7005.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2003.
Decided Dec. 19, 2003.
Thomas William Browning, Appellant pro se.
Theresa Marlene Kirk, Pullin, Fowler & Flanagan, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia; Michael Deering Mullins, Steptoe & Johnson, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas William Browning appeals the district court judgment and order entering judgment in favor of the defendants. Browning filed a complaint alleging excessive force by two law enforcement officials during an arrest. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed one defendant as a matter of law and the other defendant on the facts. We affirm.
We find the district court did not abuse its discretion denying the motion for production of transcripts at government expense. Insofar as Browning claims his counsel was ineffective, the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel does not apply in civil cases. Sanchez v. United States Postal Service, 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir.1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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