Robert S. Ballard v. John J. Dozier; Brittnay Coleman; Patricia Hunt; Leslie McIver

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6621
ROBERT S. BALLARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN J. DOZIER; BRITTNAY COLEMAN; PATRICIA HUNT; LESLIE
MCIVER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-ct-03341-M)
Submitted: December 16, 2025 Decided: January 20, 2026
Before GREGORY, THACKER, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert S. Ballard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert S. Ballard, a state prisoner, appeals the amended judgment in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action and the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motions for a
new trial on the issue of damages. “A district court may grant a new trial only if the verdict:
(1) is against the clear weight of the evidence; (2) is based upon false evidence; or (3) will
result in a miscarriage of justice.” EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131, 145 (4th
Cir. 2017). We review the denial of a Rule 59 motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion,
Wickersham v. Ford Motor Co., 997 F.3d 526, 535 (4th Cir. 2021), and we “will not reverse
such a decision save in the most exceptional circumstances,” Gentry v. E. W. Partners Club
Mgmt. Co., 816 F.3d 228, 241 (4th Cir. 2016) (citation modified).
As an initial matter, we reject as without merit Ballard’s conclusory argument that
the district court failed to clearly instruct the jury on damages. Additionally, we have
reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Ballard’s motions for a new trial. The jury found that John Dozier, a correctional
officer, used excessive force against Ballard, but it did not award Ballard any compensatory
damages. In his motions, Ballard argued that he suffered an actual injury and, therefore,
that the jury should have awarded him compensatory damages. But the jury’s decision not
to award such damages was not against the weight of the evidence. Rather, based on the
evidence, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Ballard’s injuries were too minor
to be compensable, or that Dozier used both excessive and justifiable force and that only
the justifiable force caused Ballard’s injuries. See Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d
93, 123 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussing when verdict denying compensatory damages is

-- 2 of 3 --

3
permissible); Price v. City of Charlotte, 93 F.3d 1241, 1245 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that,
for § 1983 “plaintiff to recover more than nominal damages, his injury must have actually
been caused by the challenged [unconstitutional] conduct”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and amended judgment. Ballard v.
Dozier, No. 5:20-ct-03341-M (E.D.N.C. May 28, 2024; May 29, 2024). 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

-- 3 of 3 --