Cases 1 - 10 of 41
Arnold v. Maple Leaf Farms Inc Long Term Disability Plan et al
as 3:2024cv00216
Plaintiff:
Brian Arnold
Defendant:
Maple Leaf Farms Inc Long Term Disability Plan and United of Omaha Life Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
MAPLES v. ELAM et al
as 1:2023cv01695
Plaintiff:
SHANNON MAPLES
Defendant:
DUSTIN ELAM and WAYNE COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00733
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00652
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
SISTRUNK v. MAPLES et al
as 4:2023cv00100
Plaintiff:
GARY KEITH SISTRUNK
Defendant:
SCOTT MAPLES, GURD, ESLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SOLOMON v. PHILLIPS et al
as 4:2023cv00053
Plaintiff:
ROBERT A. SOLOMON
Defendant:
PHILLIPS, CUPO, O'LOUGHLIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DOE 4 et al v. MAPLES et al
as 4:2023cv00034
Plaintiff:
JANE DOE 4 and JANE DOE 8
Defendant:
SCOTTIE MAPLES, DAVID LOWE, MARK MEYER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
HILL et al v. MAPLES et al
as 4:2023cv00033
Plaintiff:
DESTINY HILL, MARY JOHNSON, ASHLEIGH SANTIAGO and others
Defendant:
SCOTTIE MAPLES, DAVID LOWE, MARK MEYER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DAVIS v. OFFICER HARTLEY et al
as 4:2023cv00031
Plaintiff:
JERRY T. DAVIS
Defendant:
OFFICER HARTLEY, LT. THOMAS, MAJ. O'LAUGHLIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MAPLE v. NCF
as 2:2023cv00025
Petitioner:
JAMES MAPLE
Respondent:
NCF
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
