Cases 31 - 40 of 55
Curry v. USA
as 1:2012cv00653
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Freddie Lee Curry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Curry v. Director of the Charleston County Detention Center
as 0:2011cv01405
Petitioner:
Jerome Curry
Respondent:
Director of the Charleston County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Curry v. South Carolina, State of
as 0:2011cv00677
Petitioner:
Thaddeus Lorenzo Curry
Respondent:
Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Curry v. Charleston County Detention Center, The
as 0:2010cv02823
Defendant:
Charleston County Detention Center, The
Plaintiff:
Jerome Curry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dunbar et al v. Mack et al
as 8:2010cv01775
Plaintiff:
Maurice Dunbar, Reginald C Mack, Lloyd Bennett and others
Defendant:
James Metts and City Council
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rosenberg v. Currie et al
as 9:2010cv01555
Plaintiff:
Stephen Rosenberg
Defendant:
Cameron Currie, Dean Eichelberger, US Marshal Service and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rosenberg v. Currie et al
as 0:2010cv01555
Plaintiff:
Stephen Rosenberg
Defendant:
Cameron Currie, Dean Eichelberger, US Marshal Service and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rosenberg v. Currie et al
as 9:2010cv01305
Plaintiff:
Stephen Rosenberg
Defendant:
Cameron Currie, Dean Eichelberger, US Marshal Service and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Curry et al v. Charleston County Police Department et al
as 0:2010cv00522
Plaintiff:
Jerome Curry, Betty Ann Brown and Quantella Curry
Defendant:
Charleston County Police Department, Charleston County Probation and Parole and Clayton Mood
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Curry v. Lark et al
as 4:2009cv02535
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Curry
Defendant:
Luke Lark, Rhonda Manley, Phillip Anderson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
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.
