Chuck Louis Jarrell, Louisiana prisoner no. 122727, appeals the summary judgment dismissing his claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jarrell sought monetary damages based on allegations that, while a pretrial detainee, he urinated on himself in court because no defendant would escort him to a restroom.

“Summary judgment is reviewed de novo, under the same standards the district court applies to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate.” Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp., 936 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The magistrate judge, trying the case by consent, correctly determined that Jarrell failed to present summary judgment evidence to show either “deliberate indifference” on the part of any defendant or that he suffered any physical injury that was not de minimis. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane) (pretrial detainees, like convicted prisoners, must show deliberate indifference); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); Alexander v. Tippah County, Miss., 351 F.3d 626, 628-29, 631 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2071, 158 L.Ed.2d 623 (2004). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Jarrell moves for appointment of counsel. The motion is DENIED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.