Cases 1 - 10 of 22
MORROW v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA et al
as 1:2022cv01081
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL G. MORROW, JR.
Defendant:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, OWNER OF THE F.C.L.E.D.C, FORSYTH COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT DETENTION CENTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Franklin v. Naph Care Inc. et al
as 7:2022cv00245
Plaintiff:
Shawn Lamont Franklin
Defendant:
Naph Care Inc., Roanoke City Jail, S. Walsh and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Franklin v. Naph Care Inc. et al
as 7:2022cv00237
Plaintiff:
Shawn Lamont Franklin
Defendant:
Naph Care Inc., S. Walsh and Roanoke City Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Saunders v. Hash et al
as 7:2022cv00219
Plaintiff:
Davayon Jerrell Saunders
Defendant:
Sheriff Antonio Hash, Head Nurse Stephanie Walsh, Naph Care Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mathis v. Burke et al
as 7:2022cv00223
Plaintiff:
Rodrel Deunta Mathis
Defendant:
Deputy Burke, Naph Care Inc., Head Nurse Stephanie Walsh and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Armonti v. NAPH Care et al
as 2:2019cv00384
Defendant:
NAPH Care and Dr. Abdul H. Jamaludeen
Plaintiff:
Montcier Paris Armonti
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Farris et al
as 2:2019cv00115
Defendant:
Ken Stolle, M. Farris and Naph Care Inc.
Plaintiff:
Alexander Allen Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Waller v. Jamaludeen et al
as 1:2019cv00122
Defendant:
NAPH Care and Abdul H. Jamaludeen
Plaintiff:
Manuel C. Waller
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Woody et al
as 1:2018cv00390
Plaintiff:
Derrell T. Johnson
Defendant:
C.T. Woody, Jr., Naph Care/Correctional Medical Care, Inc. and Brandi D. Wilkerson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Christopher McDowell v. Naph Care Medical
as 1:2017cv00585
Plaintiff:
Christopher Maurice McDowell
Defendant:
Naph Care Medical Nurses
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.
