Cases 21 - 30 of 94
Edmonds v. Corizon Medical Services et al
as 4:2020cv00946
Defendant:
T. Bredeman, Unknown Smotherson, D. Meyer and others
Plaintiff:
Akira Edmonds
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hermreck v. Corizon Medical Services et al
as 2:2020cv04115
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services, Missouri Department of Corrections and Beth Cladd
Plaintiff:
Gary Lee Hermreck
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Blakey v. Precythe et al
as 2:2020cv04096
Defendant:
Joan Reinkemeyer, Dittman, Corizon Medical Services and others
Plaintiff:
Jackie Dewayne Blakey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Corizon Medical Services et al
as 6:2020cv03135
Defendant:
Kathy Barton, Jeff Norman, Ralf Sake and others
Plaintiff:
John R. Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mayes v. Corizon Medical Services et al
as 6:2020cv03100
Defendant:
South Central Correctional Center, Corizon Medical Services, Michelle Buckner and others
Plaintiff:
David Lawrence Mayes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Corizon Medical Services, Inc. et al
as 6:2020cv03068
Plaintiff:
Ernest C Williams
Defendant:
Ian Wallace, Darrell D Case, Richard Fritz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sykes v. Jost et al
as 4:2020cv00191
Plaintiff:
Martin J. Sykes
Defendant:
Farmington Correctional Center, Robert Wuedell, Terri Lawson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Corizon Medical Service et al
as 4:2020cv00051
Plaintiff:
Thomas Leon, II and Leon Thomas
Defendant:
Robert Wudel, Corizon Medical Service, Tymber Taylor and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barber v. Hill et al
as 1:2019cv00235
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services and Nina Hill
Plaintiff:
Joseph Barber
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hardman v. Corizon Medical Services et al
as 1:2019cv00209
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services and Nina Hill
Plaintiff:
Gary Hardman
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.
