¶1 Kevin W. McDaniels appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s report and granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McDaniels v. Powers, No. CA-01-3472-22-AK (D.S.C. Aug. 12, 2002; Sept. 30, 2002; January 7, 2003). We deny McDaniels’ motion for appointment of counsel. We 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.
¶2 AFFIRMED.
¶3 McDaniels originally filed his notice of appeal before the district court entered its final judgment. We dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. After the district court entered its final judgment, McDaniels moved in this court to reopen or reinstate his appeal. We granted the motion. We construe McDaniels' timely filed motion to reopen or reinstate his appeal as a notice of appeal from the district court's final judgment. Cf. Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992).