Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Fisher et al v. Smith et al
as 1:2022cv01297
Plaintiff:
John T. Fisher, III, Annie S. Fisher, Sara D. Murray and others
Defendant:
Abner Smith, Jonathan Kasper, Dana Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights
ROYSTER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
as 5:2020cv00051
Not Classified By Court:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NOTICE)
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Plaintiff:
JACQUELINE MARIE ROYSTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
ROYSTER v. BERRYHILL
as 5:2017cv00302
Plaintiff:
JACQUELINE MARIE ROYSTER
Defendant:
NANCY A. BERRYHILL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv00150
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Life Insurance Company of North America v. Lynn et al
as 2:2012cv00024
Plaintiff:
Life Insurance Company of North America
Defendant:
James M. Lynn, Jr. and Glenda F. Royster
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Royster v. State of Georgia
as 1:2011cv03949
Petitioner:
William P. Royster
Respondent:
State of Georgia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Royster et al v. Concorde Acceptance Corporation, Inc. et al
as 1:2010cv03614
Plaintiff:
Scottie V. Royster and Gregory Lamont Royster
Defendant:
Concorde Acceptance Corporation, Inc., HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., All Persons Unknown, Claiming any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the Property described in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiffs Title, or any Cloud on Plaintiffs Title and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601
Royster v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta et al
as 1:2008cv01781
Petitioner:
Michael Royster
Respondent:
Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta and Lexington Kentucky, Board of Parole and Probation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
