Cases 11 - 20 of 23
Pelzer v. McCall et al
as 8:2010cv02484
Plaintiff:
Thomas Lee Pelzer
Defendant:
Michael McCall , Miriam Cocciolone , Florence Mauney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
T Terell Bryan v. Defense Technology US et al
as 1:2010cv02353
Plaintiff:
T Terell Bryan
Defendant:
Defense Technology US, US Attorney, Miriam Cocciolone and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bryan v. Defense Technology US, et al
as 10-8068
Plaintiff - Appellant:
T. TERELL BRYAN
Defendant - Appellee:
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY US, ADETORO A. SOBOWALE, AMY R. ENLOW and others
Bryan v. Defense Technology US et al
as 1:2010cv02111
Plaintiff:
T Terell Bryan
Defendant:
Defense Technology US, United States Attorney, Adetoro A Sobowale and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
T Terell Bryan v. Defense Technology US et al
as 2:2010cv05980
Plaintiff:
T Terell Bryan
Defendant:
Miriam Cocciolone, Defense Technology US, James Simmons, III and others
Pelzer v. McCall et al
as 2:2010cv02065
Plaintiff:
Thomas Lee Pelzer
Defendant:
Michael McCall, Florence Mauney, Miriam Cocciolone and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bryan v. Defense Technology U.S. et al
as 2:2010cv01601
Plaintiff:
T Terell Bryan
Defendant:
Defense Technology U.S., United States Attorney's Office, Miriam Cocciolone and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bryan v. Campbell et al
as 1:2010cv01977
Plaintiff:
T Terell Bryan
Defendant:
Russell Campbell, Diane S. Hoehing, Defense Technology U.S. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bryan v. Defense Technology U S et al
as 2:2010cv00152
Plaintiff:
T Terrell Bryan
Defendant:
Defense Technology U S, U S Attorney, Adetoro A Sobowale and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bryan v. Campbell et al
as 3:2010cv00641
Plaintiff:
T. Terell Bryan
Defendant:
Russell Campbell, Diane S. Hoehing, Defense Technology U.S. and others
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.
