OPINION

James Edward Dawkins appeals the district court’s order entering judgment on the jury’s verdict finding a violation of Dawkins’ Fourth Amendment rights but nonetheless declining to award damages in this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) action. Among other claims of error, Dawkins contends on appeal that the district court erred in failing to award nominal damages. The Supreme Court’s decision in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 267, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978), “obligates a court to award nominal damages when a plaintiff establishes the violation of [a constitutional right] but cannot prove actual injury.” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 112, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992). Accordingly, we will vacate that portion of the district court’s judgment that denies any monetary relief and remand for entry of an award of nominal damages not to exceed $1.00. See Norwood v. Bain, 166 F.3d 243, 245 (4th Cir. 1999) (en banc). In all other respects, we affirm the district court’s entry of judgment. See Dawkins v. Huffman, No. CA-97-171-5-4-MU (W.D.N.C. June 5, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *108 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.