Arkansas inmate John Newberry appeals from the district court’s 1 judgment for defendants following a bench trial on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force claim. After careful consideration of the arguments in Newberry’s brief, we conclude that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed. Newberry fails to direct us to anything in the record which would show that the district court erred in entering judgment against him after crediting defendants’ testimony regarding their conduct, see United States v. Wicker, 80 F.3d *391 263, 268 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court’s findings as to credibility of witnesses are virtually unreviewable on appeal), or that it abused its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel, see Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review; pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in civil case).

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B., and deny all of Newberry’s pending motions.