John Paul Dyke appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to substitute counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We conclude that Dyke cannot show prejudice arising from the district court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, 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