Cases 81 - 90 of 133
James Roudabush, Jr. v. Charles Samuels, Jr., et al
as 16-2149
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., Director, ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR, Central Office, ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE and others
Donald Jackman, Jr. v. 5751 Unit Team Fort Dix, et al
as 16-1995
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DONALD G. JACKMAN, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
5751 UNIT TEAM FORT DIX, WARDEN FORT DIX FCI, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and others
In re: James Roudabush, Jr.
as 16-1860
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, JR.
Defendant - Respondent:
E. HALL, Lt., MARCHANELLO, Ltd., LT. BITENER, Lt. and others
Nominal Respondent:
NOEL L. HILLMAN
William Boney v. Warden Fort Dix FCI
as 16-1664
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM BONEY
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN FORT DIX FCI
In re: Thomas Jennings, II
as 16-1380
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: THOMAS HAREL JENNINGS, II
Defendant - Respondent:
WARDEN FORT DIX FCI
Nominal Respondent:
ROBERT B. KUGLER
In re: Alberto Concepcion
as 16-1048
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: ALBERTO CONCEPCION
Defendant - Respondent:
WARDEN FORT DIX FCI
Not Party - Nominal Respondent:
SUSAN D WIGENTON
Alberto Concepcion v. Warden Fort Dix FCI
as 15-3894
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ALBERTO CONCEPCION
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN FORT DIX FCI
James Roudabush, Jr. v. Reyes, et al
as 15-3700
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
REYES, Captain, VINCENT, Lt and WARDEN FORT DIX FCI
Jose Rodriguez-Ramos v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al
as 15-3630
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ-RAMOS
Defendant - Appellee:
BUREAU OF PRISONS, WARDEN FORT DIX FCI and FORT DIX FCI
Harry Berroa v. Donna Zickefoose, et al
as 15-3584
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HARRY BERROA
Defendant - Appellee:
DONNA ZICKEFOOSE, WARDEN, FORT DIX FCI, M. BAKER, HSA 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.
