Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Daniel Jamison v. Chadwick Dotson
as 24-6132
Plaintiff:
DANIEL W. PHOENIX, a/k/a Daniel W. Jamison
Defendant:
CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, MARK AMONETTE, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, NATARCHA GREGG, M.S.A., RD., State Wide Dietician and others
Donald Jackson v. Tammy Williams
as 23-6856
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DONALD C. JACKSON
Defendant / Appellee:
TAMMY WILLIAMS, Warden of DFCC, MARK ENGELKE, Director of Food Service and NATARCHA GREGG, State Dietician
David Richardson v. Harold Clarke
as 22-6392
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID A. RICHARDSON
Defendant / Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, EDDIE L. PEARSON, Lead Warden - Greenville Correctional Center, TAMMY WILLIAMS, Warden, DRCC Correctional Center and others
Ostrander, Inmate # 1124822 v. Clarke et al
as 2:2021cv00525
Plaintiff:
Phillip James Ostrander, Inmate # 1124822
Defendant:
Harold W Clarke, Tammy Williams, Warden, J. D. Oates and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
David Richardson v. Harold Clarke
as 21-6507
Defendant / Appellee:
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HAROLD W. CLARKE, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, TAMMY WILLIAMS, Warden, DRCC Correctional Center and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID A. RICHARDSON
Ostrander v. Clarke et al
as 2:2021cv00046
Defendant:
Harold W. Clarke, J. D. Oates, Tammy Williams, Warden and others
Plaintiff:
Phillip J. Ostrander and Phillip James Ostrander, Inmate # 1124822
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jamison v. Northam et al
as 3:2020cv00339
Defendant:
L. Kingley, J. Suhcur, RN, Edwards and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel W. Jamison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ernest Washington v. Tammy Williams
as 20-6349
Respondent / Appellee:
TAMMY WILLIAMS, Warden Deerfield Correctional Center and HAROLD CLARKE, Director of DOC
Petitioner / Appellant:
ERNEST DONALD WASHINGTON
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.
