Cases 11 - 20 of 21
Dunham v. Malik et al
as 2:2013cv10001
Plaintiff:
Russell Dunham
Defendant:
Malik, Burkirk, Jeffrey C. Stieve and others
Underwood v. Heyns et al
as 2:2012cv15679
Plaintiff:
Travis Underwood
Defendant:
Daniel Heyns, David Bergh, Jeffrey Stieve and others
Bragg #427455 v. Corizon Corp. et al
as 1:2012cv00917
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Bragg #427455
Defendant:
Corizon Corp. , Adam Edelman , Isaac Alexis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pettway v. Thumb Correctional Facility Health Care, et al. et al
as 2:2012cv11040
Plaintiff:
Deland Pettway, Jr
Defendant:
Thumb Correctional Facility Health Care, et al., Prison Health Services, Harriett Squier and others
Colwell v. Corizon Healthcare et al
as 2:2011cv15586
Plaintiff:
Dickie Colwell
Defendant:
Corizon Healthcare, Adam Edelman, Megan J Dziedzic and others
Bailey # 154364 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2011cv01170
Plaintiff:
Essex W. Bailey # 154364
Defendant:
Michigan Department of Corrections, Cindi Curtin, Prison Health Services, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cinergy Health Incorporated v. LeadKarma LLC et al
as 2:2011cv01555
Plaintiff:
Cinergy Health Incorporated
Defendant:
LeadKarma LLC, Neal Shanske, Keith Bachand and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Sildack v. Corizon Health Inc. et al
as 2:2011cv12939
Plaintiff:
Trenton Sildack
Defendant:
Corizon Health Inc., Prison Health Services, Inc., Correctinal Medical Services, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Prison Health Services, Incorporated et al
as 2:2011cv12134
Plaintiff:
Scott Jones
Defendant:
Prison Health Services, Incorporated, Pragna Pandya, David Sharp and others
Clifton Moffat v. MDOC, et al, et al
as 10-2351
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CLIFTON PAUL MOFFAT
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ADAM EDELMAN and others
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.
