Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Coffy v. Aramark Correctional Services LLC et al
as 8:2024cv00123
Plaintiff:
Michael J Coffy
Defendant:
Aramark Correctional Services LLC, Mr. Isaih Williams, Tom Crocker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
MCALLISTER v. ARAMARK CORRECTION SERVICE et al
as 1:2021cv00371
Defendant:
FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, CAROL BOSHOLM, DAWN QUASHIE and others
Plaintiff:
ANTON THURMAN MCALLISTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv00783
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
King v. ARAMARK Correctional Services, LLC, et al
as 2:2012cv00473
Plaintiff:
Frank King
Defendant:
ARAMARK Correctional Services, LLC and Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Kenard Johnson v. Stan Barry
as 12-6889
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KENARD E. JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee:
STAN BARRY, Sheriff of Fairfax County, LT. TANNER, Supervisor policy and planning and ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Johnson v. Barry et al
as 1:2012cv00227
Plaintiff:
Kenard E. Johnson
Defendant:
Stan Barry, Tanner and Aramark Correctional Services
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Marcum v. Barry et al
as 1:2012cv00272
Defendant:
Stan Barry, Tanner and Aramark Correctional Services
Plaintiff:
Micheal Anthony Marcum
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harris v. Barry et al
as 1:2012cv00271
Defendant:
Stan Barry, Tanner and Aramark Correctional Services
Plaintiff:
Isaih E. Harris, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv00269
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
Alderman v. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
as 5:2011cv00286
Plaintiff:
Robert Alderman
Defendant:
Aramark Correctional Services, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
