Cases 11 - 20 of 83
Swift #202475 v. Eldeman et al
as 1:2017cv00854
Plaintiff:
Keith Labronzo Swift #202475
Defendant:
Adam Eldeman and Corizon Medical Service
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Walker v. Ford et al
as 1:2017cv01147
Plaintiff:
Derrick Walker
Defendant:
Tammie Ford, John Doe, William Howell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Franklin Clayton v. MDOC, et al
as 17-1847
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FRANKLIN DAVID CLAYTON
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT NAPEL, Warden, HEIDI E. WASHINGTON and others
Walker v. Ford et al
as 3:2017cv01076
Plaintiff:
Derrick Walker
Defendant:
Tammie Ford, John Doe, William Howell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Demetrius Rogers v. Lyle Mindlin, et al
as 17-1844
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DEMETRIUS ROGERS
Defendant - Appellee:
LYLE S. MINDLIN, Radiologist and CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES
Rogers #372900 v. Mindlin et al
as 1:2017cv00527
Plaintiff:
Demetrius Rogers #372900
Defendant:
Lyle Mindlin and Corizon Medical Services
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnny McGowan, Jr. v. Clement Barnard, et al
as 17-5392
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHNNY L. MCGOWAN, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
CLEMENT BARNARD and CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES
Defendant:
O. OSBORNE, LIEUTENANT KEVIN GUNN, VICKIE BYBEE and others
Johnny McGowan, Jr. v. Clement Barnard, et al
as 17-5358
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHNNY MCGOWAN
Defendant:
O. OSBORNE, CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, LIEUTENANT KEVIN GUNN and others
Defendant - Appellee:
CLEMENT BARNARD
Webster v. Parker et al
as 1:2017cv00030
Plaintiff:
Javon Webster
Defendant:
Tony Parker, Cherry Lindamood, SCCC Pevahouse Disciplinary and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Maisano v. Barchlay-Dodson et al
as 3:2017cv00415
Plaintiff:
Dale Maisano
Defendant:
Karen Barchlay-Dodson, Louis Turner, Corizon Medical Services Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
