Cases 41 - 50 of 67
Bloodworth et al v. Treadwell
as 1:2014cv01505
Plaintiff:
Edward Lamar Bloodworth and Dae Eek Cho
Defendant:
Marc Thomas Treadwell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Barthe et al v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 9:2014cv80238
Respondent:
Commissioner of Social Security
Petitioner:
Edwidge Barthe , Karen A Mancini , Robert Vincent Dubey and others
Defendant:
Kabaka McDuffie
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Bloodworth v. Fulton County Public Defender Office
as 1:2013cv04265
Plaintiff:
John Thomas Bloodworth, Jr.
Defendant:
Fulton County Public Defender Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv03509
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
BLOODWORTH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 5:2013cv00169
Plaintiff:
EDWARD LAMAR BLOODWORTH
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and JOHN AND OR JANE DOES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
BLOODWORTH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 5:2013cv00112
Plaintiff:
EDWARD LAMAR BLOODWORTH
Defendant:
JOHN AND OR JANE DOES and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
BLOODWORTH v. IMERY'S KAOLIN COMPANY INC et al
as 5:2012cv00418
Plaintiff:
EDWARD LAMAR BLOODWORTH
Defendant:
IMERYS KAOLIN INC and GLENN RAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
FELTON v. ASTRUE et al
as 5:2012cv00325
Plaintiff:
RANDALL GREGORY FELTON
Defendant:
MICHAEL J ASTRUE and BLOODWORTH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 402
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2012cv01851
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Campbell v. Mercer University et al
as 5:2012cv00181
Defendant:
MERCER UNIVERSITY, Mercer University Tarver Library, Mercer University Police and others
Plaintiff:
Dexter Campbell
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.
