Cases 1 - 10 of 26
WOODBERRY v. MICHAEL et al
as 1:2024cv00231
Plaintiff:
MANDRAIL JAMAR WOODBERRY
Defendant:
JUDGE MICHAEL, JOHN BANDLE, M. ODOM and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SIMMONS v. HODGES
as 1:2023cv00926
Petitioner:
BILLY SIMMONS
Respondent:
BRUCE HODGES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00645
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
HODGE v. BOOKING AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS et al
as 1:2022cv00448
Plaintiff:
KRISTI JO MOSS HODGE
Defendant:
BOOKING AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, RANDOLPH COUNTY MAGISTRATE, RANDOLPH COUNTY COURTHOUSE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv00321
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HODGE v. BERRYHILL
as 1:2018cv00206
Plaintiff:
TERESA HODGE
Defendant:
NANCY A. BERRYHILL
Interested_party:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205
HODGE V. BERRYHILL
as 1:2017cv00678
Plaintiff:
JOHN T. HODGE
Defendant:
NANCY A. BERRYHILL
Interested_party:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
CHANDLER v. FORSYTH TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE et al
as 1:2017cv00172
Defendant:
FORSYTH TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE, FORSYTH TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, NANCY RAPP and others
Plaintiff:
CHANDLER and HANNAH CHANDLER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
HODGE v. USA
as 1:2016cv00781
Petitioner:
GARNETT ALISON HODGE
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
EDWARDS v. AG OF DURHAM, INC. et al
as 1:2016cv00057
Plaintiff:
ANDREA EDWARDS
Defendant:
AG OF DURHAM, INC., AG OF WAKE FOREST, INC., AG OF RALEIGH, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2
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.
