Cases 21 - 30 of 45
El-Amin et al v. Moyer et al
as 1:2016cv01349
Plaintiff:
M. Abdullah El-Amin, Anthony Lloyd and Joshue Zembower
Defendant:
Stephen T. Moyer, J. Philip Morgan, Contah Nimely and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nimley v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
as 3:2016cv00214
Plaintiff:
William Nimely
Defendant:
7-Eleven, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
King v. Corizon, Inc. et al
as 1:2014cv00818
Plaintiff:
Larry King
Defendant:
Corizon, Inc. , Contah Nimely , James Neal and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2014cv00713
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Younger v. Correctional Medical Services et al
as 1:2014cv00429
Plaintiff:
Simeon Leonard Younger
Defendant:
Correctional Medical Services, Wexford Health Services Inc. , Getechew and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Putney v. Wexford Health et al
as 1:2013cv02977
Plaintiff:
Kory Putney
Defendant:
Wexford Health, Isais Tessema, Lisa Schindler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Horning et al
as 1:2013cv01843
Plaintiff:
Robert D. Jones
Defendant:
Kenneth Horning, James Neal, Comtah Nimely and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Donald Brown v. Dr. Myleta Obsu
as 13-6834
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DONALD RAY BROWN
Defendant - Appellee:
DR. MYLETA OBSU, DR. CONTAH NIMELY and WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Nimely v. Rofar Realty Co. Inc. et al
as 1:2013cv02630
Defendant:
Burger King Corporation, Consumer Food Services, LLC and Rofar Realty Co. Inc.
Plaintiff:
Thomas Nimely
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Nimely v. RXR 620 Owner II LLC et al
as 1:2013cv02069
Plaintiff:
Thomas Nimely
Defendant:
RXR 620 Owner II LLC and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12112 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
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.
