Cases 1 - 9 of 9
GREGORY v. CARTER et al
as 2:2022cv00404
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL K GREGORY and MICHAEL KIMBLE GREGORY
Defendant:
ROBERT E CARTER, JR., DAVID LIEBEL, INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTION and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gregory v. Carter et al
as 3:2022cv00768
Plaintiff:
Michael K Gregory and Michael Kimble Gregory
Defendant:
Robert E Carter, Jr, David Liebel, Indiana Dept of Correction and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
REED v. ARAMARK et al
as 2:2022cv00023
Plaintiff:
BENNIE K. REED
Defendant:
ARAMARK, B. SMITH, D. BEDWELL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
COVINGTON v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE OF INDIANA L.L.C. et al
as 2:2021cv00134
Defendant:
D. BEDWELL, B. SMITH and ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE OF INDIANA L.L.C.
Plaintiff:
TODD COVINGTON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCMULLEN v. BEDWELL et al
as 2:2020cv00343
Defendant:
D. BEDWELL, ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE OF INDIANA, LLC and B. SMITH
Plaintiff:
HENRY TYWAN MCMULLEN, SR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SERRANO v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES et al
as 2:2019cv00510
Defendant:
ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES, D. BEDWELL, WALLACE and others
Plaintiff:
JUAN SERRANO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PERKINS v. ARAMARK et al
as 2:2019cv00265
Defendant:
T. BOCH, ARAMARK, D. BEDWELL and others
Plaintiff:
COREY PERKINS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bedwell v. Braztech International LC
as 1:2017cv22335
Plaintiff:
Suzanne M. Bedwell and Ernest D. Bedwell
Defendant:
Braztech International, L.C.
Counter_claimant:
Braztech International, L.C.
Counter_defendant:
Ernest D. Bedwell and Suzanne M. Bedwell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bedwell v. Menard Inc et al
as 2:2009cv00352
Plaintiff:
Ronald D Bedwell
Defendant:
Menard Inc, Menard Inc and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
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.
