OPINION ON REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN CRUZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNNAMED DEFENDANTS;
                                                                    No. 99-6102
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KINDER;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MURPHY;
LIEUTENANT FLEMING; MAJOR
MATHENA,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-98-103-R)

Submitted: July 13, 1999

Decided: July 29, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges,
and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Edwin Cruz, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney
General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is before us on Appellant Edwin Cruz's petition for
rehearing. We dismissed the appeal as untimely. However, in light of
new evidence that Cruz's misdirected notice of appeal was timely, see
Fed. R. App. P. 4(d), we grant rehearing and consider the case on the
merits. However, our review of the record discloses no reversible
error.

As the district court correctly concluded, Cruz's allegation of
deprivation of property is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
(West Supp. 1999). See Hudson v. Palmer, 

, 532-33
(1984).

Cruz's excessive force claim was tried to a jury. The jury's verdict
was based on its determination of the witnesses' credibility, and as
such, it is not reviewable. See United States v. Saunders, 

,
60 (4th Cir. 1989). Contrary to Cruz's assertion, he is not entitled to
a written record of the individual jurors' votes. Further, the record
does not suggest clear error in the Defendants' use of a peremptory
strike to exclude a potential juror. See Davis v. Baltimore Gas & Elec.
Co., 

, 1026-27 (4th Cir. 1998). Finally, neither the
admission into evidence of a videotape of only a portion of the inci-
dent at issue, nor Cruz's failure to call witnesses known to him prior
to trial, provides a basis for relief on appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED

                    2