Nazeer Vick v. Keith Stone

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 4, 2025
• Docket: 24-6986
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6986 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6986

NAZEER DIJON VICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF KEITH STONE; MISTE STRICKLAND; DAVID MOORING; CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON; S. E. SMITH; TANIKA S. JONES, Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

NASH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; WILSON MEDICAL CENTER; JOHNSTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; RONALD STEWART; NURSE JANE DOE; ABIGAIL GENAUDEAU; AARON S. HOLLY, Deputy,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:22-ct-03022-FL)

Submitted: February 27, 2025 Decided: March 4, 2025

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6986 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/04/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Nazeer Dijon Vick, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Florencio Castro, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6986 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/04/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Nazeer Dijon Vick appeals the district court’s order denying Vick summary

judgment and granting Defendants summary judgment in Vick’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order. Vick v. Stone, No. 5:22-ct-03022-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2024). We

deny Vick’s “Motion to Use Videos from Related Case.” See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)

(providing that the record on appeal consists only of “(1) the original papers and exhibits

filed in the district court; (2) the transcript of proceedings, if any; and (3) a certified copy

of the docket entries prepared by the district clerk.”); Phonometrics, Inc. v. Westin Hotel

Co., 319 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“We, as a court of review, generally do not

consider evidence that has not been considered by the district court.”). 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