Peoples v. Leflore County, et al

Defendant: Leflore County, and Dwight McCaskill
Plaintiff: Cornelius Peoples
Case Number: 4:2013cv00080
Filed: April 24, 2013
Court: Mississippi Northern District Court
Office: Greenville Division Office
County: Leflore
Presiding Judge: Glen H. Davidson
Referring Judge: Jane M Virden
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Mississippi Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Peoples v. Leflore County, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Leflore County,
Represented By: Gary E. Friedman
Represented By: Jason Thomas Marsh
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dwight McCaskill
Represented By: Jason Thomas Marsh
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cornelius Peoples
Represented By: Carlos Eugene Moore
Represented By: Tangala LaNiece Hollis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.