Cases 91 - 100 of 806
LOUDERMILK v. ROLLINS et al
as 3:2022cv00008
Plaintiff:
WANDA LOUDERMILK
Defendant:
DAVID MICHAEL ROLLINS, THE HARPER CORPORATION-GENERAL CONTRACTORS and HARPER CORPORATION-GENERAL CONTRACTORS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
MOORE v. LIMERIE et al
as 3:2022cv00005
Defendant:
JENNIFER GAIL LIMERIE, JENNIFER GAIL MOORE, PETER LIMERI and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID BARRY MOORE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
JONES v. SPANN
as 3:2022cv00004
Petitioner:
LOUIS DAVID JONES
Respondent:
Warden JAMES C SPANN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2021cv00468
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
JOHNSON v. FOSTER, et al.
as 4:2021cv00219
Plaintiff:
DAVID T JOHNSON
Defendant:
URVASHI FOSTER, BILLIE JOE FOSTER, Deputy BROOKS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
WILSON v. PERRY et al
as 5:2021cv00457
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL DAVID WILSON, JR
Defendant:
WARDEN CLINTON PERRY, JESSICA DEAN, LACHAKA MCKENZIE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CAMPBELL v. BERRY et al
as 5:2021cv00445
Plaintiff:
DAVID LANE CAMPBELL
Defendant:
WARDEN WALTER BERRY, ERIC MARTIN, REGINA WOMBLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JONES v. WILLAMSON et al
as 5:2021cv00453
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER ADDARRYL JONES and TUPAC DAVID SHAKUR
Defendant:
TERRANCE DENNIS, KELSIE WILLIAMSON, WARDEN BERRY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JOHN DOE v. BUNT
as 5:2021cv00424
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE
Defendant:
DAVID W BUNT and DAVID W BUNT United States District Court Office of the Clerk, Middle District of Georgia doing business as CLERK OF US COURT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
BRAND v. MONROE et al
as 3:2021cv00130
Plaintiff:
DAVID L BRAND, JR
Defendant:
CITY OF MONROE, S HAYES, M BAILEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
