UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WARREN BENNETT; REANDER
MATTOCKS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.
                                                                      No. 99-1081
OFFICER YOAKLEY; OFFICER WORD;
THE TOWN OF GAITHERSBURG,
MARYLAND, a Municipal
Corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge; Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge,
sitting by designation.
(CA-96-3897-PJM)

Submitted: March 31, 2000

Decided: May 2, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John O. Iweanoge, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. David Karp,
ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Warren Bennett and Reander Mattocks appeal the dis-
trict court's judgment entered based upon jury verdicts in favor of
Gaithersburg Police Officers Word and Yokley* on their 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint and state law claims alleging
excessive force, false arrest, unlawful detention, and assault and bat-
tery. Appellants allege the district court erred by transferring the trial
from the Greenbelt Division to the Baltimore Division of the United
States District Court in Maryland, excluding their expert witness testi-
mony, and denying their motions for judgment of acquittal and for a
new trial. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Appellants maintain the district court lacked jurisdiction to transfer
the trial in this matter from the Greenbelt Division to the Baltimore
Division and that the transfer prejudiced them because of the inconve-
nience and expense of traveling. A court, however, possesses discre-
tion to transfer any civil action to any other district or division where
it might have been brought for the convenience of parties and wit-
nesses or in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) (West
Supp. 1999).

We review the district court's decision to admit or exclude expert
testimony for abuse of discretion. See Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374,
378 (4th Cir. 1993). The proffered expert witness testimony contains
only general conclusions that the force used by the officers was not
justified and that all police agencies provide training in the area of the
use of force, and we find no abuse of discretion in excluding it.

After the jury was dismissed, Appellants moved for a new trial
asserting the jury verdicts were inconsistent. Because Appellants
_________________________________________________________________
*The district court misspelled Yokley's name on its docket.

                     2
failed to object to the jury's final verdict before the jury was dis-
charged, their objection was waived. See White v. Celotex Corp., 878
F.2d 144, 146 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we find the district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellants' motion for a new
trial on this ground.

We therefore affirm the district court's orders and final judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
