Cases 1 - 10 of 39
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00041
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00796
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
BAKER et al v. MATTHEWS
as 1:2023cv00566
Plaintiff:
SIMPSON BAKER and LILLIAN BAKER
Defendant:
DAVID MATTHEWS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
ARMSTRONG v. NORTH CAROLINA et al
as 1:2023cv00297
Plaintiff:
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
NORTH CAROLINA, A.G. BATEMAN, JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
DORIETY v SLETTEN et al
as 1:2023cv00211
Plaintiff:
WAKITA DORIETY
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA and MATTHEW LEWIS SLETTEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
DAVIS v. AUSTIN et al
as 1:2023cv00086
Plaintiff:
WILMA KAY DAVIS
Defendant:
KEVIN AUSTIN, J. GREGORY MATTHEWS, VALARIE ZACHARY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00439
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12112 Americans with Disabilities Act
ESTATE OF JOSEPH LOPEZ v. HAMILTON et al
as 1:2022cv00421
Plaintiff:
ESTATE OF JOSEPH LOPEZ
Defendant:
MATTHEW HAMILTON and CITY OF GREENSBORO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00391
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12112 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00342
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
