Cases 41 - 50 of 70
Ryan #787263 v. Watkins et al
as 1:2014cv00510
Plaintiff:
Sean Michael Ryan #787263
Defendant:
Dewey Watkins, Unknown Simon, Unknown Ball and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ryan #787263 v. Bunting et al
as 1:2014cv00511
Plaintiff:
Sean Michael Ryan #787263
Defendant:
Unknown Bunting, Unknown Kemp, Unknown Sheldon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ryan #787263 v. Norwood et al
as 1:2014cv00410
Plaintiff:
Sean Michael Ryan #787263
Defendant:
Unknown Norwood, C. Lewis, Willie Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sean Ryan v. MDOC, et al
as 14-1442
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SEAN MICHAEL RYAN
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, UNKNOWN STODDARD, Warden, UNKNOWN JENSEN, Correctional Officer and others
Michael Ciacci v. Superior Court for the Distri, et al
as 14-5020
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Michael K. Ciacci
Defendant - Appellee:
Superior Court for the District of Columbia and Michael Ryan, Judge, Superior Court for the District of Columbia
CIACCI v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
as 1:2013cv01686
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL K. CIACCI
Defendant:
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and MICHAEL RYAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Darrell Bumpas v. Metro Govt of Nashville, et al
as 13-5912
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DARRELL W. BUMPAS
Defendant - Appellee:
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, FREDRICK TEAGUE, Sgt., MICHAEL RYAN, Officer and others
Darrell Bumpas v. Metropolitan Gov of Nashville, et al
as 13-5787
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DARRELL W. BUMPAS
Defendant - Appellee:
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, FREDRICK TEAGUE, Sgt., MICHAEL RYAN, Officer and others
Ryan #787263 v. Corizon Health Care et al
as 1:2013cv00525
Plaintiff:
Sean Michael Ryan #787263
Defendant:
Corizon Health Care, MDOC and Unknown Part(y)(ies)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
