Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Works v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
as 4:2023cv00560
Plaintiff:
Christopher Michael Works
Defendant:
Social Security Administration, Commissioner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Nylander et al v. 3M Company
as 2:2023cv00039
Plaintiff:
Robert Bruce Nylander, John Merrill Adams, JR, Russell Eugene Ahlberg and others
Defendant:
3M Company, Du Pont De Nemours Inc, UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Conway v. Lisenby (INMATE 2)
as 2:2019cv00419
Defendant:
Daryl Bailey, S. A. Lisenby and Wanda J. Robinson
Plaintiff:
Christopher Michael Conway
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Philips v. Surrett et al
as 2:2016cv00067
Plaintiff:
Warren Philips
Defendant:
Donnie Surrett and Christopher Michael Bowman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Joslyn v. Corizon Medical Services et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2015cv00297
Plaintiff:
Christopher Michael Joslyn
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services and Nurse Long
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv00104
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brown v. Bentley, et al. (INMATE 2)
as 2:2014cv00739
Defendant:
Batina Carter, Kim Tobias Thomas and Robert Bentley
Plaintiff:
Christopher Michael Brown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LaFogg v. Spann-Dabney (INMATE 2)
as 2:2013cv00239
Plaintiff:
Christopher Michael LaFogg
Defendant:
Sharon Spann-Dabney
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2011cv01102
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LaFogg v. Meeks et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2011cv01103
Plaintiff:
Christopher Michael LaFogg
Defendant:
Dennis Meeks and Preston Hughes
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.
