¶1 Alan Dale Chronister appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying Chronister’s motion to appoint counsel, the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, and the district court’s order denying Chronister’s motion filed under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motions to appoint counsel and for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm those orders for the reasons stated by the district court. Chronister v. Metis, No. 2:04-cv-22848-HMH (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2005; Mar. 28, 2006).
¶2 Turning to the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying § 1983 relief, we note that Chronister failed to challenge the bases for the district court’s rejection of his claims in his informal appellate brief. Thus, he has waived appellate review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). We deny *163 Chronister’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
¶3 AFFIRMED.