Cases 1 - 10 of 42
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00009
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-1475
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Culler v. Lewis et al
as 2:2022cv03609
Plaintiff:
Rasheed Culler
Defendant:
Sheriff Duane Lewis, Berkeley County Sheriffs Office and Neil McSwain
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr (Other)
Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Sarah Weiss
as 22-1917
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD-FALTAS
Defendant / Appellee:
SARA HEATHER SAVITZ WEISS, JOHN MEADORS, BARNEY GIESE, all three individually for damages arising from malicious prosecution and for qui tam recovery and others
McSwain v. Cherokee County Detention Center
as 1:2021cv01594
Plaintiff:
Kenneth McSwain
Defendant:
Cherokee County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2019cv02651
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
McSwain v. Berryhill
as 3:2017cv00319
Plaintiff:
Billy G. McSwain
Defendant:
Nancy A. Berryhill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Tandy Carter
as 17-1672
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD-FALTAS
Defendant - Appellee:
TANDY CARTER, individually for damages for qui tam recovery, BARBARA JEAN BURNS, individually for damages and for qui tam recovery, SARA HEATHER SAVITZ WEISS, individually for damages and for qui tam recovery and others
Arthur Goulette v. Admin at Cherry Hospital
as 17-6330
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ARTHUR JAY GOULETTE
Defendant - Appellee:
ADMINISTRATOR AT CHERRY HOSPITAL, GEORGE T. SOLOMAN, C/O POWELL and others
McSwain v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
as 5:2017cv00639
Plaintiff:
Randy McSwain
Defendant:
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
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.
