Cases 1 - 10 of 18
Taylor v. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals et al
as 5:2022ct03117
Plaintiff:
Michael Anthony Taylor
Defendant:
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Stubbs Perdue, Attorneys at Law, Christopher Venters and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
David Duren v. Judge Robert Hood
as 17-6693
Petitioner - Appellant:
DAVID DUREN
Defendant - Appellee:
JUDGE ROBERT E. HOOD, TARA DAWN SHURLING, ALBERT DIAZ and others
Kenneth Newkirk v. Henry Hudson
as 16-6844
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KENNETH H. NEWKIRK
Defendant - Appellee:
MR. PAUL V. NIEMEYER, Judge 4th Circuit Court, JUDGE ROBERT B. KING, 4th Circuit Court, Judge and HENRY E. HUDSON, U.S. District Judge
Crawford v. Suddaby et al
as 1:2016cv00246
Plaintiff:
Lawrence L. Crawford
Defendant:
G. Suddaby, Tohenberg, William Duffy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Crawford v. Duffy et al
as 1:2015cv04005
Plaintiff:
Lawrence L. Crawford
Defendant:
William Duffy, The United States, Sharpe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Synan et al
as 1:2015cv01031
Plaintiff:
Owaiian M. Jones
Defendant:
Joseph Synan, Mark Murphy, Julian Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sutcliffe v. Duffy et al
as 1:2015cv02310
Plaintiff:
John E. Sutcliffe
Defendant:
William Duffy, The United States, Sharpe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Crawford v. Duffy et al
as 1:2015cv02309
Plaintiff:
Lawrence L. Crawford
Defendant:
William Duffy, The United States, Sharpe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VAN DYKE v. DAVIS et al
as 1:2015cv00312
Plaintiff:
DENNIS VAN DYKE
Defendant:
THOMAS DAVIS, ROBERT JAMES DAVIS, PIEDMONT CORRECTIONAL CENTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Howard Carroll v. 4th Circuit Court Judges, et al
as 13-10445
Petitioner - Appellant:
HOWARD JESSE CARROLL
Respondent - Appellee:
4TH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES and 1ST D.C.A. JUDGES
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.
