Cases 1 - 10 of 114
Mawule Tepe v. Whirlpool Customer Experience Center, et al
as 23-6085
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
WHIRLPOOL CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE CENTER, aka Whirlpool cXc, PATTON MUSICK, MONICA J. CULPEPPER and others
Mawule Tepe v. USA, et al
as 23-6086
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CURTIS L. COLLIER, United States District Court Judge, KATHERINE A. CRYTZER, United States District Court Judge and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-6097
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01298
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003 Job Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00161
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Mawule Tepe v. USA, et al
as 23-5593
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CURTIS L. COLLIER, United States District Court Judge, KATHERINE A. CRYTZER, United States District Court Judge and others
Mawule Tepe v. USA, et al
as 23-5188
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CURTIS L. COLLIER, United States District Court Judge, KATHERINE A. CRYTZER, United States Magistrate Judge and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2022cv02226
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)
Montgomery v. Culpepper et al
as 1:2022cv00178
Plaintiff:
Christopher Lashawn Montgomery
Defendant:
Thomas Culpepper and Circuit Court Judge
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Tepe v. United States
as 1:2022cv00275
Plaintiff:
Mawule Tepe
Defendant:
United States, Curtis L Collier, Katherine A. Crytzer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
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.
