Inmate Steven Donnelle Cody appeals from the order of the District Court, 1 en *609 tered after an evidentiary hearing, dismissing his consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1988 actions. Upon careful consideration of Cody’s arguments for reversal, we conclude that the District Court properly entered judgment for the defendants based on the hearing evidence. See Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 340-42 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing a pretrial detainee’s failure-to-protect claim); Story v. Norwood, 659 F.3d 680, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing for clear error a district court’s findings of fact made following an eviden-tiary hearing, which is the equivalent of a bench trial, and noting that credibility findings are virtually unreviewable on appeal); Crow v. Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 601-02 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining that a pretrial detainee’s conditions-of-confinement claims are analyzed under the same deliberate-indifference standard as those brought by convicted prisoners: the detainee must show that conditions posed a substantial risk of serious harm to his health or safety and that defendants knew of but were deliberately indifferent to this risk).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and Cody’s pending motion is denied.