Cases 1 - 10 of 18
Hubbard v. Goldsboro Police Department et al
as 5:2024cv00267
Plaintiff:
Darrell Hubbard
Defendant:
Goldsboro Police Department, Alvino Daniels, Eric Goins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-2173
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Akers et al v. County of Sampson
as 7:2022cv00043
Plaintiff:
Joshua D. Akers, Jessica Byrd, Joseph Byrd and others
Defendant:
County of Sampson
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Marcus Smith v. Lowes Companies, Incorporated
as 21-1490
Defendant / Appellee:
LOWES COMPANIES, INCORPORATED
Defendant:
ARTIE BROOKER, ASM, ROXANNE TOBLETES, Head Cashier, MACK WIGGINS, ASM and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARCUS SMITH
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv00034
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Smith et al v. Kelso et al
as 2:2020cv00180
Plaintiff:
Marcus Smith and Nadine Smith
Defendant:
Roadrunner Moving and Storage Company, Sunstate Carriers Inc, Jason Kelso and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Batts, et al. v. Ditta, et al.
as 5:2018ct03060
Plaintiff:
Titus Lamont Batts, Erik Everett-El, Eddie L. Brooks-Bey and others
Defendant:
Michael Ditta, Betty Brown, FNU Cameron and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Porter et al
as 6:2017cv02105
Plaintiff:
Garrin David Smith
Defendant:
D Porter, W Mann, J F Cole and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. COLVIN
as 1:2013cv00502
Plaintiff:
DANNY MARCUS SMITH
Defendant:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Interested_party:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Brooks v. Bufford et al
as 8:2010cv00689
Plaintiff:
Bevan Xavier Brooks
Defendant:
Curtis L Bufford, Michael Higgins, Timothy Lepet and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
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.
