Cases 1 - 10 of 29
Woodard v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan
as 9:2023cv00203
Plaintiff:
Raymond Lee Woodard
Defendant:
Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Young v. Lumpkin
as 22-40673
Petitioner / Appellant:
Raymond Lee Young
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
King v. Callaghan et al
as 4:2022cv00006
Plaintiff:
Jeremiah P King
Defendant:
Lisa Callaghan and Raymond Lee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
USA v. McKinney
as 21-50308
Defendant / Appellant:
Raymond McKinney, also known as Ray Lee McKinney, also known as Ray L. McKinney, also known as Raymond L. McKinney, also known as Scott Eaven, also known as Scott Lee, also known as Raymond Lee McKinney, also known as Ray Green
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Cavitt v. Lumpkin
as 4:2020cv04142
Petitioner:
Raymond Lee Cavitt
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lozano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
as 4:2020cv00737
Plaintiff:
Raymond Lee Lozano
Defendant:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Young v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 1:2019cv00394
Petitioner:
Raymond Lee Young
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
USA v. Raymond McKinney
as 19-50801
Defendant / Appellant:
RAYMOND MCKINNEY, also known as Ray Lee McKinney, also known as Ray L. McKinney, also known as Raymond L. McKinney, also known as Scott Eaven, also known as Scott Lee, also known as Raymond Lee McKinney, also known as Ray Green
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Raymond Cavitt v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 18-20161
Petitioner - Appellant:
RAYMOND LEE CAVITT
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
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.
