Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Gregory Gary-Bey v. Janet Polavek
as 15-7760
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GREGORY TYRONE GARY-BEY, a/k/a Gregory Tyrone Gary
Defendant - Appellee:
JANET POLAVEK, Secretary of Corporation, BRYAN M. RHODE, Secretary of Public Safety and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Director
Gary-Bey v. Polavek et al
as 2:2015cv00401
Plaintiff:
Gregory Tyrone Gary-Bey
Defendant:
Janet Polavek, Brian M. Rhode and Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv00015
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Gregory Gary v. Robert McDonnell
as 12-6902
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GREGORY T. GARY
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, Governor, Virginia, BRYAN T. WORWOOD, City of Richmond Police, MICHELLE B. MITCHELL, Sheriff, City of Richmond Jail and others
Gary v. McDonnell, etc., et al
as 2:2012cv00099
Plaintiff:
Gregory Tyrone Gary
Defendant:
Robert F. McDonnell, City of Richmond Police, Bryan T. Worwood, City of Richmond Jail Sheriff, Michelle B. Mitchell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation v. TUG ROBERT BURTON et al
as 2:2011cv00601
Plaintiff:
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation
Defendant:
TUG ROBERT BURTON and Norfolk Tug Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2010cv00136
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
American Bridge Company v. James Young
as 09-1458
Plaintiff - Appellant:
AMERICAN BRIDGE COMPANY
Claimant - Appellee:
JAMES YOUNG, Limitation Claimant, THOMAS E. CLARK, Limitation Claimant, TOM'S COVE AQUA FARMS, INCORPORATED, Limitation Claimant and others
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.
