Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Muhammad v. Wiles
as 23-50786
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Bilal Muhammad
Defendant / Appellee:
Richard Wiles, El Paso County Sheriff, Marco Vargas, Kevin Lanahan and others
Wasanyi v. Aramark Services Incorporated et al
as 2:2023cv00575
Plaintiff:
David M. Wasanyi
Defendant:
Aramark Services Incorporated and Brittany Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Maxey v. Cuyahoga County Jail et al
as 1:2023cv01604
Plaintiff:
Derrick S. Maxey
Defendant:
Cuyahoga County Jail, Aramark Services and Trinity Services Group
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Maxey v. Cuyahoga County Jail et al
as 1:2023cv01603
Plaintiff:
Derrick S. Maxey
Defendant:
Cuyahoga County Jail, Aramark Services and Trinity Services Group
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
SCUTERI v. ARAMARK SERVICES et al
as 2:2023cv00163
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ANDREW SCUTERI
Defendant:
ARAMARK SERVICES and PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rice v. Aramark Services, Inc.
as 1:2022cv01545
Plaintiff:
LaTrecha Rice
Defendant:
Aramark Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
THOMAS v. HALL et al
as 3:2022cv07427
Plaintiff:
JONATHAN LEE THOMAS
Defendant:
LESLIE HALL and ARAMARK SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tankesly Jr v. Aramark Services, Inc. et al
as 1:2020cv00017
Defendant:
Ralph Adkinson, Kevin Genovese, Christa Jenkins and others
Plaintiff:
Clavin Tankesly Jr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Muhammad v. Wiles et al
as 3:2019cv00367
Defendant:
John Doe 1-125, Joanne Bernal, Aramark Services Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Bilal Muhammad
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Robledo-Valdez v. Aramark Services, LLC et al.
as 1:2017cv02001
Plaintiff:
Craig S. Robledo-Valdez
Defendant:
Aramark Services, LLC and Mike Fish
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
