UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHNNY WATSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

H. R. POWELL, Warden; W. S.
COPELAND, Assistant Warden of
Programs; T. M. ARTIS, Corrections
Lieutenant/Institutional Investigator;
A. B. SPEIGHT, JR., Corrections                                     No. 98-6542
Lieutenant; O. L. TURNER,
Correctional Officer,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

DEERFIELD CORRECTIONAL CENTER;
RONALD W. ANGELONE,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-96-478-3)

Submitted: December 15, 1998

Decided: February 12, 1999

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Johnny Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Watson appeals the district court's grant of summary judg-
ment as to Defendants Powell and Copeland regarding several of his
claims in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) action, and the
magistrate judge's final judgment in favor of all Defendants as to his
remaining claims.* Finding no error we affirm.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and
opinion granting summary judgment as to Defendants Powell and
Copeland in several of Watson's claims and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm that determination on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court. See Watson v. Powell, No. CA-96-478-3 (E.D. Va. Mar.
25, 1998).

Turning to the magistrate judge's entry of final judgment following
a bench trial, the record reflects that the Defendants' motion for sum-
mary judgment as to Watson's remaining claims was denied due to
conflicting versions of events. Put simply, if Watson's versions of
events was accurate, the district court believed that he could state a
claim. If, however, the Defendants' version of events was accurate,
Watson failed to state a claim. Thus, the bench trial before the magis-
trate judge revolved entirely around issues of credibility. Because wit-
_________________________________________________________________
*The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

                    2
ness credibility is not reviewable on appeal, and because the facts as
alleged by the Defendants clearly evidence no constitutional viola-
tions, we affirm the magistrate judge's final entry of judgment in
favor of the Defendants. See McCrary v. Runyon , 

,
1086 (4th Cir.) ("We may not reverse a trier of fact, who had the
advantage of hearing the testimony, on a question of credibility."),
cert. granted, 

(1975), aff'd , 

(1976). We
also deny all pending motions. 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