Cases 11 - 19 of 19
Darby v. Major et al
as 0:2015cv00529
Plaintiff:
Derrick Darby
Defendant:
Simon Major, Daryl F McGhaney and Staff Sgt James
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Major v. James et al
as 5:2015cv00051
Plaintiff:
Matthew Major
Defendant:
Sgt James, Sgt Sweat and Ofc Blakely
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lloyd v. Major et al
as 1:2014cv04666
Plaintiff:
Mario Antwan Lloyd
Defendant:
Simon Major, Daryl McGhaney, Theresa Ray-Lee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hairfield-Ulsch v. Montgomery County Police Department et al.
as 8:2014cv02418
Plaintiff:
Charles Tyler Hairfield-Ulsch
Defendant:
Montgomery County Police Department , Officer Patrick Skiba , Officer Farmer and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Whitaker v. Norfolk Sheriff's Office et al
as 1:2013cv01498
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey D. Whitaker
Defendant:
Norfolk Sheriff's Office, Sheriff McCabe, Lt. Col. Borom and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clyburn v. Champagne et al
as 6:2010cv01925
Plaintiff:
Ceceia L Clyburn
Defendant:
Lt Champagne, Lt Price, Sgt James and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lonnie Gholson v. Gene Johnson
as 10-7010
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LONNIE MCDONOVAN GHOLSON, etc., all
Defendant - Appellee:
GENE JOHNSON, Head Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, JOHN JABE, Deputy Director for VDOC, RANDALL MATHENA, Former Arrest Warden at ROSP and others
Lonnie Gholson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
as 10-6157
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LONNIE MODENENAN GHOLSON
Defendant - Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, (Mr. Mark Davis; Mr. James Gilmore), COUNTY OF WISE and others
Gholson v. The Commonwealth of Virginia
as 2:2010cv00005
Plaintiff:
Lonnie Modenenan Gholson
Defendant:
The Commonwealth of Virginia, The Virginia Attorney General, The County of Wise and others
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.
