Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

William Leon Burnett appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of certain Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Burnett v. Canning, No. 9:16-cv-02742-MGL, 2017 WL 3484483 (D.S.C. Aug. 14 & Sept. 7, 2017); see also Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motion); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (discussing appointment of counsel in civil actions), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989). We deny Burnett’s motion for counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED