Cases 41 - 50 of 63
Mark Melton v. Warden Tyger River
as 12-6387
Petitioner - Appellant:
MARK MELTON
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Respondent:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Melton v. State of South Carolina
as 8:2011cv03384
Petitioner:
Mark Claude Melton
Respondent:
Warden Tyger River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Patrick Guess v. Cecilia Reynold
as 11-7153
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PATRICK GUESS
Defendant - Appellee:
CECILIA R. REYNOLDS, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution, TIMOTHY RILEY, Warden, Tyger River Institution, JON OZMINT, Agency Director and others
Littlejohn v. South Carolina Department of Cor
as 0:2011cv00889
Petitioner:
Steven W Littlejohn
Respondent:
Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Greg Gaines v. State of South Carolina
as 09-8196
Petitioner - Appellant:
GREG GAINES
Respondent - Appellee:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA and WARDEN, TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Greg Gaines v. State of South Carolina
as 09-7903
Petitioner - Appellant:
GREG GAINES
Respondent - Appellee:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA and WARDEN, TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Christopher Jones v. SC Dept of Corrections
as 09-7309
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER BERNARD JONES
Defendant - Appellee:
SC DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, JON OZMINT, SC DEPT PROBATION PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES and others
Owens v. McMasters et al
as 0:2009cv00192
Plaintiff:
Curtis Q Owens
Defendant:
Henery McMasters, Jon Ozmint, Oscar Faulkenberry and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Anthony Marlar v. Warden, Tyger River Correction
as 08-8572
Petitioner - Appellant:
ANTHONY L. MARLAR
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
William Neely v. Warden
as 08-8395
Petitioner - Appellant:
WILLIAM D. NEELY
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, Tyger River Correctional Institution
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.
