Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00753
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Dmitry Pronin v. Charles Wright
as 19-6780
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DMITRY PRONIN
Defendant / Appellee:
NEAL URCH, L. BLACKWELL and CHARLES WRIGHT, "Chuck"
Defendant:
ASHLEY MCCANN
Dmitry Pronin v. Charles Wright
as 17-6613
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DMITRY PRONIN
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES WRIGHT, "Chuck", NEAL URCH, ASHLEY MCCANN and others
Pronin v. Wright et al
as 5:2016cv03635
Plaintiff:
Dmitry Pronin
Defendant:
Charles Wright, Neal Urch, Ashley McCann and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Yarbrough et al v. Wright et al
as 5:2016cv02924
Plaintiff:
Phillip Yarbrough and Dmitry Pronin
Defendant:
Charles Wright, ., Neal Urch, Ashley McCann and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wright et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2014cv04426
Plaintiff:
Robbin Carol Wright and Charles Wright
Defendant:
C. R. Bard, Inc., Sofradim Production SAS, Tissue Science Laboratories Limited and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Wilson v. Ruff et al
as 4:2014cv00101
Plaintiff:
Ruby Wilson
Defendant:
Michael Ruff , Travis Lupton , April Marshall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wright et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2013cv33148
Plaintiff:
Carmel Lynn Wright and Alfred Charles Wright
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon, LLC and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Charles Wright v. Harold Clarke
as 13-7816
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES WRIGHT
Defendant - Appellee:
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections, CLERK OF COURT, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE OF NORFOLK and others
Wright v. Clarke et al
as 2:2013cv00441
Plaintiff:
Charles Wright
Defendant:
Harold W. Clarke, Clerk of Court and Circuit Court Judge of Norfolk
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.
