Cases 1 - 10 of 10
B. et al v. Romero et al
as 1:2022cv11851
Plaintiff:
F. B. and G. G.
Defendant:
Melvis C. Romero, Massachusetts Department of Corrections, Wellpath and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
B. et al v. Romero et al
as 1:2022cv11849
Plaintiff:
F. B., G. G. and Kristie Ladouceur
Defendant:
Melvis C. Romero, Department of Corrections of Massachusetts, Wellpath and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nano Mobile Healthcare, Inc. v. Kittle
as 1:2022cv10101
Plaintiff:
Nano Mobile Healthcare, Inc.
Defendant:
David Noah Kittle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment
Brown v. Department of Correction et al
as 1:2021cv11117
Plaintiff:
Rashard Brown
Defendant:
Department of Correction, Thomas A Turco, III, John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Auctus Fund, LLC v. Nano Mobile Healthcare Inc.
as 1:2017cv11974
Plaintiff:
Auctus Fund, LLC
Defendant:
Nano Mobile Healthcare Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330
Moseley v. Spencer et al
as 1:2015cv13661
Plaintiff:
William B Moseley, II
Defendant:
Luis S. Spencer, Bruce Gelb, Lynn Cherneski and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Evans v. Thompson et al
as 1:2014cv13024
Plaintiff:
John Evans
Defendant:
Michael Thompson, Dale Bissonnette, Keith Nano and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hudson v. MacEachern
as 1:2013cv12395
Plaintiff:
Mac Hudson and August Evan
Defendant:
Duane MacEachern, Scott Anderson, Keith Nano and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Advanced Nano Coatings, Inc. et al v. Hanafin
as 1:2013mc91176
Plaintiff:
Advanced Nano Coatings, Inc. , Intumescents Associates Group (IAG) and Vado (AG)
Defendant:
Joseph Hanafin
Cryer v. Dennehy et al
as 1:2007cv10232
Plaintiff:
Derek Sincere Black Wolf Cryer
Defendant:
Kathleen Dennehy, Michael Thompson, Michael Ruel and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
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.
