Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, entered following a bench trial, to deny relief in Makdessi’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We affirm the judgment.
“This [c]ourt reviews judgments stemming from a bench trial under a mixed standard: factual findings are reviewed for clear error, whereas conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” Helton v. AT & T, Inc., 709 F.3d 343, 350 (4th Cir.2013). “[W]hen a district court’s factual finding in a bench trial is based upon assessments of witness credibility, such finding is deserving of the highest degree of appellate deference.” Evergreen Int’l, S.A. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 531 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the trial record confirms that there is no clear error in any of the magistrate judge’s factual findings, which were wholesale adopted by the district court, and that the district court did not err in adopting the legal conclusions the magistrate judge drew from these facts.
Accordingly, we affirm the entry of judgment in favor of Defendants for the reasons stated by the district court in its accompanying memorandum opinion. See Makdessi v. Ayers, No. 7:13-cv-00079-GEC-PMS, 2015 WL 4067779 (W.D.Va. July 2, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten*89tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.