Cases 11 - 20 of 356
Morris v. Ascension Macomb Oakland Hospital et al
as 2:2024cv11502
Plaintiff:
Alexander Morris
Defendant:
Greg Ciesielski, Ascension Macomb Oakland Hospital and Holly Jackson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Wade v. Michigan, State of et al
as 2:2024cv11402
Defendant:
Leo P. Carey, Anthony F. Lubkin, Swanson and others
Plaintiff:
Quan D. Wade
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00510
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv11142
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00049
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00341
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporti
London v. River Rouge PD et al
as 2:2024cv10754
Plaintiff:
Randall Tremayne London
Defendant:
River Rouge PD, Barton Morris Law Firm and Wayne, County of
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv10348
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Management Solutions Holdings, LLC et al v. City of Southfield
as 2:2024cv10279
Plaintiff:
Management Solutions Holdings, LLC, Shannon Steel and Aaron Morris
Defendant:
Southfield, City of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Morris #162928 v. Crompton et al
as 1:2023cv01337
Plaintiff:
Frederick L. Morris #162928
Defendant:
Robert Crompton, Nikki Monroe and Jack Bellinger
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
