James Benton appeals the district court’s orders (1) affirming the magistrate judge’s denial of Benton’s motion for the appointment of counsel, and (2) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Benton’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Benton v. Ozmint, No. CA-04-905 (D.S.C. July 1, 2004; Oct. 27, 2004). 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