Arkansas inmate James Fudge appeals from the judgment of the District Court 1 entered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of defendants on Fudge’s excessive-force claims. Upon careful review, we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, we find no merit to Fudge’s arguments on appeal, all of which relate to the District Court’s handling of voir dire and evidentia-ry matters during trial. See Nicklasson v. Roper, 491 F.3d 830, 835 (8th Cir. 2007) (“The conduct of voir dire is generally left to the trial court’s sound discretion.”), cert, denied, 553 U.S. 1007, 128 S.Ct. 2052, 170 L.Ed.2d 797 (2008); Cavataio v. City of Bella Villa, 570 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that this Court will reverse on the basis of an erroneous evidentiary ruling only if that ruling is a clear and prejudicial abuse of the district court’s broad discretion); EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998) (“A timely and specific objection is necessary for a successful evidentiary appeal in the absence of plain error.”).

Accordingly, we affirm.