Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Doe v. United States of America
as 16-3843
Petitioner:
Jane Doe, LH and Jane Doe, AH
Respondent:
United States of America, Merrick B. Garland, Chief Judge, In his official capacity as Justice for violation of color of law only, Deborah Robinson, Judge, In her official capacity as Justice or violation of color of law only and others
Starsha M. Sewell v. Deborah K. Chasanow
as 16-2294
Plaintiff - Appellant:
STARSHA SEWELL, A Nautral Person and Resident of Maryland On Behalf of Herself and Her African American Son's
Defendant - Appellee:
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, A Nautral Person, acting as a Federal Judge In the United States of America
Sewell v. Chasanow
as 1:2016cv03256
Plaintiff:
Starsha M. Sewell
Defendant:
Deborah K. Chasanow
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dr. Tiemoko Coulibaly v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.
as 16-1247
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DR. TIEMOKO COULIBALY and DR. FATOU GAYE-COULIBALY
Defendant - Appellee:
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, Judge and others
Coulibaly et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
as 8:2015cv03276
Plaintiff:
Tiemoko Coulibaly and Fatou Gaye-Coulibaly
Defendant:
JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., United States of America, Deborah K. Chasanow and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COULIBALY et al v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. et al
as 1:2015cv01610
Plaintiff:
TIEMOKO COULIBALY and FATOU GAYE-COULIBALY
Defendant:
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEBORAH K. CHASANOW and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Andrea Briggs v. Deborah Chasanow
as 10-1457
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANDREA G. BRIGGS
Defendant - Appellee:
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, Judge, 4th Circuit - District Court, CATHERINE C. BLAKE, Judge, 4th Circuit - District Court, WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., Judge, 4th Circuit - District Court and others
Party-in-Interest:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
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.
