Cases 1 - 10 of 71
David Meyers v. Chief Judge
as 22-7211
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID MEYERS
Defendant / Appellee:
CHIEF JUDGE, United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina - Raleigh, NC Division, JAMES N. ISHIDA, Circuit Executive, TERRENCE W. BOYLE, U.S. District Judge and others
Jonathan Burrs v. USA, et al
as 22-5082
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Jonathan Burrs
Defendant / Appellee:
United States of America, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Carrier Global Corporation and others
DAWSON v. BOYLE et al
as 1:2022cv00934
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM DAWSON
Defendant:
TERRENCE W. BOYLE, DONALD HICKS, RAYNARD T. FREEMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Boyle
as 5:2022ct03090
Plaintiff:
David L. Smith
Defendant:
Terrence W. Boyle
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DAWSON v. BOYLE et al
as 1:2021cv02963
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM DAWSON
Defendant:
TERRENCE W. BOYLE and BRYAN K. WELLS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Judson Witham v. US
as 21-2071
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JUDSON WITHAM
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TERRENCE W. BOYLE, INTERNATIONAL PAPER AND POWER INC. and others
David Smith v. US
as 21-6360
Defendant / Appellee:
TERRENCE W. BOYLE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VINCE M. ROZIER, JR. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID LEE SMITH
Smith v. United States of America et al
as 5:2020ct03301
Defendant:
Terrence W. Boyle, Vince M. Rozier, Jr., Joshua Stein and others
Plaintiff:
David L. Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Abdu-Salim Gould v. US
as 20-7314
Defendant / Appellee:
PETER MOORE, JR., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TERRENCE W. BOYLE and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ABDU-SALIM GOULD, a/k/a Salim Abdu Gould
David Smith v. James Dever, III
as 20-7056
Defendant / Appellee:
JAMES C. DEVER, III, BRYAN K. WELLS, TERRENCE W. BOYLE and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID LEE SMITH
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.
