Cases filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00176
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12112 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv00325
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MORGAN v. BERRYHILL
as 1:2017cv00380
Plaintiff: CECIL HAROLD MORGAN, III
Defendant: NANCY A. BERRYHILL
Interested_party: SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 206
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRESS
as 1:2015mc00045
Petitioner: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent: CECIL R. CRESS
CECIL, ET AL V. HINSHAW, ET AL.
as 1:2015cv00409
Plaintiff: DAVID SCOTT CECIL , FRANK HOOD and MARTIN KRUMNACHER
Defendant: W. ERIC HINSHAW , GEORGE MCLAMB and THOMAS MCLEAN
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
SHAW v. USA
as 1:2012cv01340
Petitioner: JAMES CECIL SHAW
Respondent: UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
SHAW v. USA
as 1:2012cv00870
Respondent: USA
Petitioner: JAMES CECIL SHAW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
HABITAT FOR THE HUMANITY OF THE NC SANDHILLS, INC. v. UNSWORTH et al
as 1:2009cv00459
Plaintiff: HABITAT FOR THE HUMANITY OF THE NC SANDHILLS, INC.
Defendant: WILLIAM H UNSWORTH, TOWN OF PINEBLUFF NORTH CAROLINA, EARLENE MCLAMB and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Type: Civil Rights None
STOKES v. USA
as 1:2008cv00535
Respondent: USA
Petitioner: CECIL LAMONT STOKES
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
JOHNSON et al v. AQUA-CHEM, INC. et al
as 1:2007cv00451
Plaintiff: CECIL ANGUS JOHNSON and NINA B. JOHNSON
Defendant: AQUA-CHEM, INC., BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC., CERTAINTEED CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation

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.


Why Is My Information Online?