Cases 21 - 30 of 643
Kevin Reece v. Thomas Horner
as 24-1183
Plaintiff:
KEVIN RAY REECE
Defendant:
THOMAS HORNER, MATTHEW DAVID LEACH, LEE B. BOLLINGER and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1173
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Murphy v. Shuman et al
as 1:2024cv00323
Plaintiff:
Kevin Donnell Murphy
Defendant:
Ruth Shuman and Any staff member that was involved
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1402 US as Defendant
Murphy v. Fader et al
as 1:2024cv00326
Plaintiff:
Kevin Donnell Murphy
Defendant:
Chief of Staff, Mr. Craig Fader and All Employees
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00151
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 754 Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00233
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00041
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1050
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Johnson v. Virginia Department Of Corrections et al
as 3:2024cv00080
Plaintiff:
Kevin Johnson
Defendant:
Virginia Department Of Corrections, Chadwick S. Dotson, A. David Robinson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Dineen Etienne v. Machelle Sanders
as 24-1044
Plaintiff:
DINEEN CHERYLANN ETIENNE
Defendant:
MACHELLE SANDERS, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Administration; North Carolina Department of Commerce, TAMMIE ELAINE HALL, Division Executive Director, Historically Underutilized Businesses, BENNY SLOAN, DBW Certification Officer, North Carolina Department of Transportation and others
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.
