Full text
Nazeer Vick v. Keith Stone
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. *2 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *3 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.