
    John Patrick DONOHUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lt. J. D. LAMBERT; Lt. McCowan; Lt. Payne; Lt. C. C. Gilbert; Sgt. C. Deel; C/O S. T. White; C/O McCurdy; Lt. B. Franklin; T. Carroll; C/O Phillip P. Mullins, Defendants-Appellees, and Lt. Blevens; Warden Randall C. Mathena; C/O Beverly; Unit Manager W. Swiney; Officer Adams; Major Gallihar; K. Brinkley; Sgt. D. Barton; M. Younce; J. Diets; L. Mullins; M. Counts; Vitatoe; Powers; L. R. Collins; S. L. Day; R. D. Gibson; D. A. Still; Quillen; Johnson; Walker; Ingle; T. McCoy; T. Raiford; John Doe; V. Gray; P. White; E. Rodriquez; D. Saunders; Harris Diggs; Cauchrin; E. Miller; John Does; G. K. Washington; C/O C. E. Rose, Defendants.
    No. 16-6628
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 31, 2017
    Decided: September 26, 2017
    John Patrick Donohue, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Keuling-Stout, KEULING-STOUT, PC, Big Stone Gap, Virginia; Timothy Worth McAfee, TIMOTHY W. MCAFEE, PLLC, Big Stone Gap, Virginia; Gregory Michael Stewart, STEWART LAW OFFICE, PC, Norton, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Patrick Donohue appeals the district court’s order denying his posttrial motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, and to appoint counsel. We previously granted Donohue’s motion for a transcript of his trial. We review Dono-hue’s motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. Russell v. Absolute Collection Servs., Inc., 763 F.3d 385, 391 (4th Cir. 2014). We review his motions for a new trial and to appoint counsel for abuse of discretion. Gentry v. E. W. Partners Club Mgmt. Co., 816 F.3d 228, 241 (4th Cir. 2016); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987). We have reviewed the present record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Donohue v. Lambert, No. 7:13-cv-00397-GEC-PMS (W.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2016). 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  