Cases filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
Cases 1 - 10 of 12
DOTSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
as 5:2023cv00141
Plaintiff: ELISSA MARIE DOTSON
Defendant: COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (INTERESTED PARTY) and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (NOTICE)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
DOTSON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 5:2019cv00225
Defendant: JACK RANDALL SAULS, TREVONZA BOBBITT, CLAY NIX and others
Plaintiff: TIMOTHY DOTSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOTSON v. CHAPMAN
as 3:2017cv00077
Petitioner: OMAR JAMEL DOTSON
Respondent: JOE CHAPMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DOTSON v. NOWLIN et al
as 3:2017cv00060
Plaintiff: OMAR JAMEL DOTSON
Defendant: NOWLIN, LISA DOE and CORRECT HEALTH INC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOTSON v. THRASHER et al
as 3:2017cv00059
Plaintiff: OMAR JAMEL DOTSON
Defendant: DEAN THRASHER, JOHN B MINTON, HENSLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOTSON v. CHAPMAN et al
as 3:2017cv00028
Plaintiff: OMAR J DOTSON
Defendant: JOE CHAPMAN, TAO, HALL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOTSON v. WALTON COUNTY et al
as 3:2017cv00027
Plaintiff: OMAR J DOTSON
Defendant: WALTON COUNTY, LAYLA H ZON, JACQUELINE PAYNE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOTSON v. CHAPMAN et al
as 3:2017cv00015
Plaintiff: OMAR J DOTSON
Defendant: JOE CHAPMAN, MINTON and WADE HARRIS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOTSON v. GEORGIA et al
as 3:2016cv00126
Plaintiff: OMAR J DOTSON
Defendant: STATE OF GEORGIA, LAYLA ZON, JAQUELINE PAYNE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOTSON v HALL et al
as 3:2016cv00037
Plaintiff: OMAR JAMEL DOTSON
Defendant: STEVE HALL, WALTON COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, KIRK MCLEROY and others
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.


Why Is My Information Online?