Cases 31 - 40 of 962
Douglas Melter v. US
as 23-6812
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DOUGLAS E. MELTER
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, named as United States Employed
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-6809
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Tolbert v. Schaeffer et al
as 7:2023cv00531
Plaintiff:
Shawn Tolbert
Defendant:
Trooper Douglas D. Schaeffer and Trooper Daniel L. Lundy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Terrance James v. Roy Cooper
as 23-6756
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TERRANCE LAMOUNT JAMES
Defendant / Appellee:
ROY COOPER, Governor, ROBERT LEE GUY, Lieutenant Governor, FORREST D. BRIDGES, Judge, Cleveland County and others
Melton v. Federal Correctional Institution McDowell et al
as 1:2023cv00512
Plaintiff:
Douglas Wade Melton
Defendant:
Federal Correctional Institution McDowell, Warden, Medical Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Simmons v. Cleveland County Medical
as 1:2023cv00180
Plaintiff:
Lonnie Douglas Simmons
Defendant:
Cleveland County Medical
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Porter v. Medical Staff
as 5:2023ct03195
Plaintiff:
Michael D. Porter and Michael Douglas Porter
Defendant:
Medical Staff
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Alexander v. Warden Tyger River
as 6:2023cv03145
Petitioner:
John Douglas Alexander
Respondent:
State of South Carolina
Defendant:
Jonathan Nance
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Steve Riddick v. Douglas Barton
as 23-6639
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STEVE RIDDICK
Defendant / Appellee:
LT. DOUGLAS BARTON, UNIT MANAGER LARRY COLLINS, C/O C. BAKER and others
McBride v. Clarke
as 2:2023cv00302
Petitioner:
Douglas Scott McBride
Respondent:
Harold Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
