Cases 11 - 20 of 40
USA v. Earl Cobb, IV
as 20-1916
Defendant / Appellant:
EARL LEE COBB, IV
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Desmond Ricks, et al v. David Pauch, et al
as 20-1778
Plaintiff / Appellee:
DESIRE'A RICKS, AKILAH COBB and DESMOND RICKS
Defendant / Appellant:
DONALD STAWIASZ, DAVID PAUCH and ROBERT B. WILSON
USA v. Roy Cobb
as 20-5811
Defendant / Appellant:
ROY LACY COBB
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In re: Marcus Cobb
as 20-3677
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
In re: MARCUS K. COBB
Robert Pirtle, et al v. City of Jackson, TN Police, et al
as 20-5414
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROBERT LEE PIRTLE, KIMBERLY LAWRENCE and ALISON LOUISE MYLES-CORNELIUS
Defendant / Appellee:
NATHANIEL SHOATE, PAUL CAPPS, JEROD COBB and others
Andre' Myers v. Leasure, et al
as 19-4052
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ANDRE' S. MYERS
Defendant / Appellee:
MS. LEASURE, Unit Manager, MR. BOND, Unit Sergeant and MR. COBB, Correction Security Officer
Rufus Spearman v. Daniel Heyns, et al
as 17-1384
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUFUS SPEARMAN, aka Rufus Lamar Savin Spearman
Defendant - Appellee:
DANIEL H. HEYNS, Director of the MDOC, RICHARD D. RUSSELL, Grievance Manager & Misconduct Hearings Administrator, UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as Kinross Complex Store, Jane Doe (Prisoner Store Employees) and others
Rufus Spearman v. Daniel Heyns, et al
as 17-1338
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUFUS SPEARMAN, aka Rufus Lamar Savin Spearman
Defendant - Appellee:
DANIEL H. HEYNS, Director of the MDOC, RICHARD D. RUSSELL, Grievance Manager & Misconduct Hearings Administrator, UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as Kinross Complex Store, Jane Doe (Prisoner Store Employees) and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-5199
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Roy Cobb v. USA
as 16-6699
Petitioner - Appellant:
ROY LACY COBB
Respondent - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
