Cases 1 - 10 of 29
Sosa v. Mass. DOC., et al
as 24-1433
Plaintiff:
CHE BLAKE SOSA
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, JAMES J. SABA, former Superintendent, MCI Cedar Junction, in his official and individual capacities, LUIS S. SPENCER, former Commissioner of the Department of Correction, in his official and individual capacities and others
Gladu v. Maine Department of Corrections, et al
as 23-1006
Plaintiff / Appellant:
NICHOLAS A. GLADU
Plaintiff:
ZACHARY SWAIN, ROBERT J. CARROLL, RYAN LANE and others
Defendant / Appellee:
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RANDALL LIBERTY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Maine Department of Corrections, MATTHEW MAGNUSSON, individually and in his official capacity as Warden of Maine State Prison and others
Defendant:
RYAN THORNELL, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Maine Department of Corrections, DANIEL RITTER, individually and in his official capacity as Health Services Administrator for Wellpath LLC and JOHN NEWBY, individually and in his official capacity as Regional Vice President for Wellpath LLC
Drewry v. Wellpath Inc., et al
as 22-1849
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BRANDON BOONE DREWRY
Defendant / Appellee:
WELLPATH INC., DANIEL RITTER, Health Services administrator, DR. ALI and others
Gladu v. Maine Department of Corrections, et al
as 22-1645
Plaintiff / Appellant:
NICHOLAS A. GLADU
Plaintiff:
ZACHARY SWAIN, ROBERT J. CARROLL, RYAN LANE and others
Defendant / Appellee:
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RANDALL LIBERTY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Maine Department of Corrections, MATTHEW MAGNUSSON, individually and in his official capacity as Warden of Maine State Prison and others
Defendant:
RYAN THORNELL, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Maine Department of Corrections, DANIEL RITTER, individually and in his official capacity as Health Services Administrator for Wellpath LLC and JOHN NEWBY, individually and in his official capacity as Regional Vice President for Wellpath LLC
Drewry v. Correct Care Solutions, et al
as 17-1582
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRANDON BOONE DREWRY
Defendant - Appellee:
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, ELISABETH LAMSON, Health Services Administrator, ROBERT CLINTON, Regional Medical Director and others
Defendant:
ROBERT H. DIXON
Interested Party:
JANET T. MILLS, Attorney General
Drewry v. Correct Care Solutions, et al
as 17-1581
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRANDON BOONE DREWRY
Defendant - Appellee:
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, ELISABETH LAMSON, Health Services Administrator, ROBERT CLINTON, Regional Medical Director and others
Defendant:
ROBERT H. DIXON
Interested Party:
JANET T. MILLS, Attorney General
Drewry v. Correct Care Solutions, et al
as 17-1580
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRANDON BOONE DREWRY
Defendant - Appellee:
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, ELISABETH LAMSON, Health Services Administrator, ROBERT CLINTON, Regional Medical Director and others
Defendant:
ROBERT H. DIXON
Interested Party:
JANET T. MILLS, Attorney General
Drewry v. Correct Care Solutions, et al
as 17-1501
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRANDON BOONE DREWRY
Defendant - Appellee:
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, ELISABETH LAMSON, Health Services Administrator, ROBERT CLINTON, Regional Medical Director and others
Defendant:
ROBERT H. DIXON
Interested Party:
JANET T. MILLS, Attorney General
Drewry v. Correct Care Solutions, et al
as 17-1433
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRANDON BOONE DREWRY
Defendant - Appellee:
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, ELISABETH LAMSON, Health Services Administrator, ROBERT CLINTON, Regional Medical Director and others
Defendant:
ROBERT H. DIXON
Interested Party:
JANET T. MILLS, Attorney General
Gladu v. Correct Care Solutions, et al
as 17-1341
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NICHOLAS A. GLADU
Defendant - Appellee:
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, ROBERT CLINTON, individually and in his official capacity as a Physician for Correct Care Solutions, GEORGE STOCKWELL and others
Defendant:
MICHAEL BURNS and TIMOTHY TOUCHETTE
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.
