Cases 11 - 18 of 18
Conley et al v. State of North Carolina et al
as 5:2013ct03251
Plaintiff:
David Conley, David Lee Smith and Clarence E. Williams
Defendant:
State of North Carolina, Roy A. Cooper, III, Nancy S. Nash and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Omar Pearson v. United States of America, et al
as 08-5216
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Omar Demetrious Pearson
Defendant - Appellee:
United States of America, White House Building, James C. Turk, State of North Carolina and others
PEARSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2008cv00454
Plaintiff:
OMAR DEMETRIOUS PEARSON
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JAMES C. TURK, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pearson v. State of North Carolina et al
as 7:2008cv00067
Plaintiff:
Omar Demetrious Pearson
Defendant:
State of North Carolina, Michael F. Easley, Lexis Publishing and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WOODY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2008cv00048
Plaintiff:
ANDRE LAMAR WOODY
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JAMES C. DEVER, III, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Andre Woody v. State of North Carolina
as 07-7693
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANDRE LAMAR WOODY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, MIKE F. EASLEY, LEXIS PUBLISHING and others
Woody v. State of NC
as 07-7393
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANDRE LAMAR WOODY, on behalf of himself and all others similiarly situated
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, MICHAEL F. EASLEY, LEXIS PUBLISHING and others
Woody v. State of North Carolina et al
as 2:2007cv00032
Plaintiff:
Andre Lamar Woody
Defendant:
State of North Carolina, Michael F Easley, Lexis Publishing and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
