Cases 61 - 70 of 128
PARTEE v. LOWNDES COUNTY GEORGIA
as 7:2017cv00050
Petitioner:
SEDRIC M WATERS PARTEE
Respondent:
LOWNDES COUNTY GEORGIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SCOTT v. LOWNDES COUNTY SHERIFF
as 7:2017cv00019
Plaintiff:
DENNIS DWAYNE SCOTT
Defendant:
LOWNDES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT and SPALDING COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
OWENS v. LOWNDES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
as 7:2017cv00020
Plaintiff:
RODRIQUEZ ANTONIO OWENS
Defendant:
LOWNDES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv00054
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
CHIACCHIARINI v. LOWNDES COUNTY GEORGIA, ET AL.
as 7:2017cv00002
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS CHIACCHIARINI
Defendant:
LOWNDES COUNTY GEORGIA, CHRIS PRINE, MIKE ADAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ABBOTT v. SOUTH GEORGIA MEDICAL CENTER
as 7:2016cv00232
Plaintiff:
VIRGINIA ABBOTT
Defendant:
HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES COUNTY, GEORGIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12182
JOHNSON et al v. BELL et al
as 7:2016cv00141
Plaintiff:
KENNETH JOHNSON and JACQUELYN JOHNSON
Defendant:
BRANDEN BELL, BRIAN BELL, RICK BELL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROGERS v. LOWNDES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al
as 7:2016cv00086
Plaintiff:
JOHN ADAM ROGERS
Defendant:
LOWNDES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, MATTHEW BANNISTER, RANDY LIGHTSEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
STRICKLAND v. PEACOCK et al
as 7:2016cv00024
Plaintiff:
JOHN W STRICKLAND, JR
Defendant:
LARRY DON PEACOCK, KIM PEACOCK, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Charles Hawkins v. Chris Prine, et al
as 16-10557
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES JEREL HAWKINS
Defendant - Appellee:
CHRIS PRINE, LOWNDES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and JOHN REED, Correctional Officer, Lowndes County Jail
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.
