Cases 31 - 40 of 49
Hale v. R. Lewis et al
as 1:2016cv24875
Plaintiff:
Thomas D. Hale
Defendant:
R. Lewis, Bert Boyd, Darren Settles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hale v. R. Lewis et al
as 0:2016cv62771
Plaintiff:
Thomas D. Hale
Defendant:
R. Lewis, Bert Boyd, Darren Settles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tony Goodman v. The Robert A. Deyton Detention, et al
as 15-14293
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TONY GOODMAN
Defendant - Appellee:
THE ROBERT A. DEYTON DETENTION FACILITY, THE G.E.D. GROUP INC., R. CHERRY and others
Goodman v. The Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility et al
as 1:2015cv01724
Plaintiff:
Tony Goodman
Defendant:
The Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, The G.E.D. Group Inc., R. Cherry and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Goodman v. The Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility et al
as 1:2015cv01468
Plaintiff:
Tony Goodman
Defendant:
The Robert A. Deyton Detention Facility, G.E.O. Group Inc., R. Cherry and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Anton Dames v. Matthew Horton, et al
as 14-15131
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANTON LEMAR DAMES
Defendant - Appellee:
MATTHEW P. HORTON, Federal Bureau of Investigation and JOSE PEREZ, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Haynes v. Horton, et al
as 3:2014cv00923
Plaintiff:
Michael Haynes
Defendant:
L. Horton and Sergeant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dames v. Horton et al
as 1:2014cv22415
Plaintiff:
Anton Lemar Dames
Defendant:
Matthew P. Horton and Jose Perez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles Horton v. Nicholas Degennaro, et al
as 14-10796
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES HORTON
Defendant - Appellee:
NICHOLAS DEGENNARO, AFT Agent, CHARLES SEDBERRY, AFT Agent, DAVID BENEFIELD, Cherokee Gunn/Pawn and others
Horton v. Degennaro et al
as 1:2013cv03869
Plaintiff:
Charles Horton
Defendant:
Nicholas Degennaro, Charles Sedberry, David Benefield and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
