Tyrone Demetrius Batten v. Sergeant Douglas Branham; Sergeant Skyler Allen; Correctional Officer Charles Hall

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6672
TYRONE DEMETRIUS BATTEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SERGEANT DOUGLAS BRANHAM; SERGEANT SKYLER ALLEN;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHARLES HALL,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
RICK WHITE; NP JESSEE, now known as Holbrook; M. BROOKSHIRE, Mental
Health,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Robert S. Ballou, District Judge. (7:23-cv-00178-RSB-JCH)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Tyrone Demetrius Batten, Appellant Pro Se. Austin Logan Obenshain, Nathan Henry
Schnetzler, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Demetrius Batten appeals the district court’s judgment entered after a jury
verdict following trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action alleging excessive force.
On appeal, Batten argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
He also argues that vacatur of the court’s judgment is warranted because he “did not have
a peer of [his] kind.” We affirm.*
Because Batten did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 in the district court, he may
not raise his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. See Belk, Inc. v. Meyer
Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 154 (4th Cir. 2012) (“To challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence in a civil jury trial on appeal, a party must comply with [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 50.”).
Batten did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence either before the case was
submitted to the jury or after the return of the verdict and entry of judgment and has
therefore forfeited his sufficiency challenges on appeal. Id.; see also Unitherm Food Sys.,
Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 404 (2006) (holding that party’s “failure to
comply with Rule 50(b) forecloses its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence”).
Batten also summarily suggests that vacatur is warranted here because he “did not
have a peer of [his] kind.” Batten, however, does not explain this assertion or present any
argument with respect to it. He has thus waived it. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC,
* Appellee Douglas Branham moves to dismiss this appeal on the basis that Batten
failed to prosecute it by failing to timely file his informal brief. Because Batten filed his
informal brief within the time allotted by this court’s notice issued under 4th Cir. R. 45, we
deny the motion to dismiss.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in
its opening brief or by failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot
at the issue.” (citation modified)); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)
(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is
limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Batten v. Branham,
No. 7:23-cv-00178-RSB-JCH (W.D. Va. July 18, 2025). 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

-- 4 of 4 --