Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Frederick Pitchford v. Daniel Turbitt, et al
as 11-2361
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Frederick L. Pitchford
Defendant - Appellee:
Daniel Madden Turbitt, United States Merit Systems Protective Board, in his personal capacity and Judy Farnsworth, Court Reporter
Michael Harlston, Sr. v. Office of Personnel Management, et al
as 10-3700
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Michael W. Harlston, Sr.
Defendant - Appellee:
Office of Personnel Management and Merit Systems Protection Board
Frederick Pitchford v. Daniel Turbitt
as 10-3253
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Frederick L. Pitchford
Defendant - Appellee:
Daniel Madden Turbitt, United States Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Judge
Michael Harlston, Sr. v. Office of Personnel Management, et al
as 09-2952
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Michael W. Harlston, Sr.
Defendant - Appellee:
Office of Personnel Management and Merit Systems Protection Board
Frederick Pitchford v. Daniel Turbitt
as 09-2311
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Frederick L. Pitchford
Defendant - Appellee:
Daniel Madden Turbitt, United States Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Judge
Harlston v. Office of Personnel Management et al
as 4:2009cv00776
Plaintiff:
Michael W. Harlston, Sr.
Defendant:
Office of Personnel Management and The Merit System Protection Board
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
William Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
as 08-1979
Plaintiff - Appellant:
William D. Jones
Defendant - Appellee:
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Jones v. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
as 8:2007cv00309
Plaintiff:
William D. Jones
Defendant:
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
Frederick Pitchford v. Daniel Turbitt
as 06-4140
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Frederick L. Pitchford
Defendant - Appellee:
Daniel Madden Turbitt, United States Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Judge
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.
