Cases 1 - 10 of 76
Thomas et al v. Hill et al
as 1:2024cv01993
Plaintiff:
Walter Thomas and Desmond Bailey
Defendant:
Victor Hill and Does 1-10
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Davis v. Richmond County Marshals Office et al
as 1:2023cv00197
Plaintiff:
Walter L. Davis
Defendant:
Richmond County Marshals Office, Officer Brantley, Officer Billman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Thomas v. Hill et al
as 1:2022cv03987
Plaintiff:
Walter Thomas
Defendant:
Victor Hill and Does 1-50
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
WEBB v. STATE OF GEORGIA et al
as 5:2022cv00255
Plaintiff:
DAVID Q WEBB
Defendant:
STATE OF GEORGIA, TRACY JANE MULLIS, BRADFORD LEE RIGBY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Webb v. State of Georgia et al
as 1:2022cv02129
Plaintiff:
David Q. Webb
Defendant:
State of Georgia, Attorney Tracy Jane Mulllis, Attorney Bradford Lee Rigby and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
WILLIAMS v. WARD et al
as 5:2022cv00242
Plaintiff:
MARY ANN WILLIAMS
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER TIMOTHY C WARD, WARDEN WALTER BERRY, ERIC MARTIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MCCLINTON et al v. BERRY et al
as 5:2022cv00109
Plaintiff:
Ricardo McClinton and Doris Jones
Defendant:
Warden WALTER BERRY, JARVIS PRIMUS and COUNSELOR JARVIS PRIMUS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
BYRD et al v. CLOUGH et al
as 3:2021cv00122
Plaintiff:
VICKI BYRD, KALI JONES, JOHNNY SMITH JR and others
Defendant:
OFFICER WALTER CLOUGH, SERGEANT JERROD ROBERTSON, OFFICER NICHOLAS SILVERBERG and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Shelton v. Correcthealth LLC et al
as 1:2021cv03689
Plaintiff:
Steven Shelton
Defendant:
Correcthealth LLC, Carlo Musso, Correcthealth Columbia, LLC 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.
