
    Howard JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. Clarence O’Neal BRADFORD; Michael R. Burdick; Sergeant Desimerly; D. Elder; Houston Police Department Narcotics Task Force Unit # 19; Smith, Detective; Doyle, Detective; John Doe I, Officer; John Doe II, Officer, Defendant-Appellees, Douglas McNaul, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
    No. 01-20704.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 22, 2003.
    Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Howard Johnson, Texas prisoner #785828, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and summary judgment in favor of defendants Michael Burdick and Douglas McNaul. There is no merit to Johnson’s contention that his Fourth Amendment claims relating to the search of his apartment and seizure of cocaine are not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Johnson’s argument that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on his excessive force claim is equally unavailing. “[Hjandcuffing too tightly, without more, does not amount to excessive force.” Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir.2001). Johnson’s challenge to the defendants’ alleged death threats does not present a claim of physical injury and therefore fails to state an excessive force claim. See Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 923 (5th Cir.1999). Johnson’s claim that the other officers did not intervene to stop Officer Burdick also fails, as Johnson has not shown that Officer Burdick was using excessive force. Therefore, there was no need for intervention. See Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 919 (5th Cir.1995). Johnson’s allegation of a conspiracy among the officers to violate his rights is conclusions!

Finally, Johnson’s assertions that he was not allowed sufficient discovery or the opportunity to amend his complaint are without merit. See Wicks v. Mississippi State Employment Servs., 41 F.3d 991, 994-95 (5th Cir.1995).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment for defendants Bur-dick and McNaul, or in overruling Johnson’s objections to its rulings on his procedural motions.

Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     