Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Dennis Ross v. Corizon, LLC, et al
as 16-16179
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DENNIS ROSS
Defendant - Appellee:
CORIZON, LLC, RUDOLPHE LAFONTANT, Dr., Individual and Official Capacity and LINDA MELENDEZ-TORRES, M.D.
Ross v. Corizon, LLC, et al
as 3:2016cv00532
Plaintiff:
Dennis Ross
Defendant:
Corizon, LLC, E. Perez-Lugo, L. Quinones and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ross v. Corizon Medical Services et al
as 3:2014cv01311
Plaintiff:
Dennis Ross
Defendant:
Corizon Medical Services, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Warden, Union Correctional Institution and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2014cv01294
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Ross v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections et al
as 3:2014cv00588
Plaintiff:
Dennis Ross
Defendant:
Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, Corizon Medical, Union Corr. Institution and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ross v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas
as 5:2012cv01602
Petitioner:
Denny Ross
Respondent:
Summit County Court of Common Pleas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Ross v. Tucker et al
as 2:2012cv00064
Plaintiff:
Dennis Ross
Defendant:
Kenneth Tucker, Robert Hemphill, M.D., Wellhouse Steven and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ross v. Kelley
as 5:2008cv02889
Petitioner:
Denny Ross
Respondent:
Bennie Kelley
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Ross v. Petro, et al
as 05-4213
Petitioner - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
DENNY ROSS
Respondent - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Respondent:
JIM PETRO, Attorney General of the State of Ohio
Ross v. Petro, et al
as 05-4212
Petitioner - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
DENNY ROSS
Respondent - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Respondent:
JIM PETRO, Attorney General of the State of Ohio
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.
