Cases 1 - 10 of 750
Britney Bates v. Chadwick Dotson
as 24-6431
Petitioner:
BRITNEY ODELL BATES
Respondent:
CHADWICK DOTSON, in his official capacity as Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
Michael Berry v. VDOC
as 24-6390
Petitioner:
MICHAEL ALLEN BERRY
Respondent:
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD
George Schuppan v. Beth Cabell
as 24-6329
Petitioner:
GEORGE ZACHARY SCHUPPAN
Respondent:
BETH CABELL, Warden, Sussex II State Prison and CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
Shuron Barksdale v. Chadwick Dotson
as 24-6289
Petitioner:
SHURON MAURICE BARKSDALE
Respondent:
CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Department of Corrections
Deandre Johnson v. Chadwick Dotson
as 24-6272
Petitioner:
DEANDRE JOHNSON
Respondent:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections and CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
Charles Massey v. Chadwick Dotson
as 24-6006
Petitioner:
CHARLES ALBERT MASSEY
Respondent:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections and CHADWICK DOTSON
William White, Jr. v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
as 23-7223
Petitioner / Appellant:
WILLIAM WHITE, JR.
Respondent / Appellee:
DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Joshua Jordan v. SC Corrections Office of Investigations
as 23-7211
Petitioner / Appellant:
JOSHUA BRYAN JORDAN
Respondent / Appellee:
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE, MATTHEW B. WATSON and RICHARD M. DARLING
Kenneth Newkirk v. Director Department of Corrections
as 23-7181
Petitioner / Appellant:
KENNETH H. NEWKIRK
Respondent / Appellee:
DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Richard Kendrick v. Chadwick Dotson
as 23-7108
Petitioner / Appellant:
RICHARD WADE KENDRICK
Respondent / Appellee:
CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
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.
