Cases 71 - 80 of 249
Bessler v. Wexford of Indiana LLC
as 3:2021cv00691
Plaintiff:
Roy Bessler
Defendant:
Wexford of Indiana LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BESSLER v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC
as 1:2021cv02413
Plaintiff:
Roy Bessler
Defendant:
WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC. and WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SAINTIGNON v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC et al
as 2:2021cv00334
Plaintiff:
DANNY LEE SAINTIGNON, Jr.
Defendant:
WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, RAJOLI, TAYLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC et al
as 1:2021cv02368
Plaintiff:
JOHN D. SMITH
Defendant:
WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, SHERRI WILSON, KIM CLARK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOYD v. PRETORIUS et al
as 1:2021cv02359
Plaintiff:
DEREK BOYD
Defendant:
TRICIA PRETORIUS, JODIE DUGGER, ROBERT CARTER, JR. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PASSMORE v. INDIANA DEPARMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2021cv00314
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL PASSMORE
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WEXFORD OF INDIANA LLC, PABLO PEREZ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Donyall White-Bey v. Dushan Zatecky, et al
as 21-2479
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DONYALL E. WHITE-BEY
Defendant / Appellee:
DUSHAN ZATECKY, Superintendent, PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and WEXFORD OF INDIANA LLC
WINDOM v. ZATECKY et al
as 2:2021cv00304
Plaintiff:
AARON D. WINDOM
Defendant:
DUSHAN ZATECKY, ALSIP, REAGLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ADAMS v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. et al
as 1:2021cv02152
Plaintiff:
CHARLES WAYNE ADAMS
Defendant:
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, MARTIAL R. KNIESER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Miller v. Galipeau et al
as 3:2021cv00496
Plaintiff:
Jalin Miller, Jalen Miller and Jaylin Miller
Defendant:
John Galipeau, Wexford of Indiana LLC and Dorothy Livers
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.
