Arkansas inmate Marvin Livingston appeals the district court’s 1 judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after an evidentiary hearing. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant Edward Adams did not use excessive force during a January 27, 2009 incident, given the evidence of Livingston’s aggressive behavior and Adams’s use of an amount of force he deemed necessary to subdue Livingston. See Hartsfield v. Colburn, 491 F.3d 394, 395-96 (8th Cir. 2007) (where there is no jury demand, evidentia-ry hearing before magistrate judge in inmate’s conditions-of-confinement case “is the equivalent of a bench trial”; appellate court reviews district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo); Andrews v. Neer, 253 F.3d 1052, 1060-61 & n. 7 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard for evaluating excessive-force claims of pretrial detainees). We also agree with the district court that Livingston’s failure to establish an excessive-force claim against Adams is fatal to his claim that the other defendants should have intervened. See Hicks v. Norwood, 640 F.3d 839, 843 *482 (8th Cir. 2011). Further, to the extent Livingston is challenging any discovery rulings, we find no abuse of discretion. See Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (standard of review).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.