Cases 21 - 30 of 1,275
Douglas Symmes, Jr. v. NC Department of Public Safety - DPS
as 24-6605
Defendant:
CONNIE LOCKLEAR JONES, Doctor, PAMELA J. LOCKLEAR, Grievance Processer, CYNTHIA LOWERY, Green Unit Secretary and others
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS ROY SYMMES, JR.
Adam Hall v. Sgt. Truner
as 24-6597
Defendant:
SERGEANT TRUNER and LIEUTENANT CRIBBS
Plaintiff:
ADAM WADE HALL
Lancaster v. Wilson et al
as 5:2024ct03150
Defendant:
Timothy L. Lewis, Bruce Hodges, Ms. Cherry and others
Plaintiff:
Milton E. Lancaster
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kenneth Newkirk v. Warden Artrip
as 24-6559
Defendant:
COUNSELOR CHURCH, COUNSELOR ADAMS, INVESTIGATOR HARRIS and others
Plaintiff:
KENNETH H. NEWKIRK
Adames v. Dotson
as 2:2024cv00352
Petitioner:
Alexander Adames
Respondent:
Chadwick Dotson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fogel v. Hall et al
as 7:2024cv00355
Defendant:
Major T. Hall, Assistant Warden J.H. Blevins, Intel Lt. Fleming and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel Brian Fogel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Graves v. White et al
as 1:2024cv03233
Plaintiff:
Michael David Graves, Jr.
Defendant:
Shanna Peeler, Cathy White, Major Leso and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Johnson v. Benny et al
as 3:2024cv00375
Plaintiff:
Javaun Johnson
Defendant:
Jason Christopher Adams and A. Benny
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hager et al v. Jividen et al
as 5:2024cv00258
Defendant:
Tiffany Ford, Christopher Walker, John/Jane Doe WVDCR Employees and others
Plaintiff:
Adam Lee Suratt and Douglas Hager
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gonzalez v. Bennett et al -
as 4:2024cv00077
Defendant:
Joseph Dunnebacke, Pamlico County, North Carolina, Jeremy Wilkinson and others
Plaintiff:
Hugo Gonzalez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
