Cases 1 - 10 of 13
WARDLOW SR. v. FAW et al
as 1:2023cv00850
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL LEWIS WARDLOW, SR.
Defendant:
C.J. FAW, D.W. COPPOLA, J.M. REYES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WARDLOW v. THOMPSON et al
as 1:2022cv00416
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL LEWIS WARDLOW
Defendant:
CATHRINE THOMPSON, OFFICER REYES, OFFICER JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Alexander v. Lewis et al
as 1:2018cv00653
Plaintiff:
Foster W. Alexander
Defendant:
Michael Lewis, Tina Jackson and L. Murphy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Annis Lloyd v. Lachlan MacNeish
as 15-6587
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANNIS RECARDO LLOYD
Defendant - Appellee:
LACHLAN MACNEISH, MARTIN J. ADAMS, KENNETH SARVIS and others
Defendant:
EDWARD J. MCMAHON, A. R. FALES, JR., G. D. JOHNSON and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv02510
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Michael Moore v. Director Jon Ozmint
as 09-7400
Petitioner - Appellant:
MICHAEL LEWIS MOORE, a/k/a Michael L. Moore
Respondent - Appellee:
JON OZMINT, South Carolina Department of Corrections and MCKITHER BODISON, Warden Lieber Correctional Institution
White v. Greenwood et al
as 5:2009ct03123
Plaintiff:
Michael Lewis White
Defendant:
B.D. Greenwood and Chief of Police
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WARDLOW v. PLEASANT et al
as 1:2009cv00381
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL LEWIS WARDLOW
Defendant:
J.B. PLEASANT, J.J. BAXTER and WINSTON-SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WARDLOW v. PLEASANT et al
as 1:2009cv00351
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL LEWIS WARDLOW
Defendant:
J.B. PLEASANT and J.J. BAXER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moore v. Ozmint
as 8:2008cv02036
Petitioner:
Michael Lewis Moore
Respondent:
John Ozmint
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
