Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Mitchell v. Levy et al
as 2:2023cv00378
Plaintiff:
Stephen Scott Mitchell
Defendant:
Dr. Marion Levy, Dr. Michael Rao and Michael Roussos
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lewis v. Rao, et al
as 3:2022cv00669
Plaintiff:
Jesse Wayne Lewis
Defendant:
Michael Rao, Ph.D. and Virginia Commonwealth University
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Wilder v. Rao et al
as 3:2022cv00498
Plaintiff:
L. Douglas Wilder
Defendant:
Michael Rao, Fotis Sotiropoulos, Jacob Belue and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Tapia v. Rao et al
as 3:2018cv00899
Defendant:
Shawn Brixey, Noah Simblist and Michael Rao
Plaintiff:
Javier Tapia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Franklin v. Wray et al
as 3:2017cv00797
Plaintiff:
Kim L. Franklin
Defendant:
Christopher Wray, Mike Pompeo, Michael S. Rogers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-1686
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Thomas Walsh v. Diomedes Logotheti
as 14-1166
Plaintiff - Appellant:
THOMAS WALSH
Defendant - Appellee:
DIOMEDED LOGOTHETIS, in his individual capacity, AMY SEBRING, in her individual capacity, JEROME STRAUSS, in his individual capacity and others
Bonnie Davis v. Michael Rao
as 13-2493
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BONNIE NEWMAN DAVIS
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL RAO, PhD, individually, L. TERRY OGGEL, PhD., individually, FRED M. HAWKRIDGE, PhD., individually and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2013cv00401
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Wrongful Termination of Employment
Davis v. Rao et al
as 3:2013cv00239
Plaintiff:
Bonnie Newman Davis
Defendant:
Michael Rao, L. Terry Oggel, Fred M. Hawkridge and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
