Cases 21 - 30 of 37
Dickson v. U.S. Department of Justice Attorney General of the U.S.A. Mrs. Loretta E. Lynch et al
as 4:2015cv00121
Plaintiff:
John M. Dickson, Jr.
Defendant:
U.S. Department of Justice Attorney General of the U.S.A. Mrs. Loretta E. Lynch, Mr. Eric Holder Former Attorney General of the U.S.A. of Covington & Burling LLP, U.S. Dept of Justice U.S. Attorney Eastern District, Virginia Mr. Dana J. Boente and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
John M. Dickson, Jr. v. FBI
as 15-2168
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN M. DICKSON, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Newport News field office, John/Jane Doe (s) Supervisor Technical agent (s), Acting as a person (s) and member (s) of a criminal enterprise Under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Newport News field office, John/Jane Doe (s) Technical agent (s), Acting as a person (s) and member (s) of a criminal enterprise Under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Newport News field office, John/Jane Doe (s) Supervisor field agent (s), Acting as a person (s) and member (s) of a criminal enterprise Under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and others
Dickson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation Newport News field office, John/Jane Doe (s) Supervisor Technical agent (s) et al
as 4:2015cv00092
Plaintiff:
John M. Dickson, Jr.
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Investigation Newport News field office, John/Jane Doe (s) Supervisor Technical agent (s), Federal Bureau of Investigation Newport News field office, John/Jane Doe (s) Technical agent (s), Federal Bureau of Investigation Newport News field office, John/Jane Doe (s) Supervisor field agent (s) and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Karns et al v. City of Hampton, Virginia et al
as 4:2015cv00086
Plaintiff:
Don E. Karns and Nathan Magnusen
Defendant:
City of Hampton, Virginia, Terry Sult, Lt. Jim Forbes and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
John M. Dickson, Jr. v. Barnes & Noble Inc.
as 15-1856
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN M. DICKSON, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
BARNES & NOBLE, INCORPORATED, The Corporation, In its Individual/Official capacities, Acting under Color of federal and State Law. As an "enterprise" for RICO Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrup, MRS/MS LYNDA MAGEE, Manager of Barnes & Noble Inc. In her individual capacity, Acting under Color of federal and State Law. Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), MRS/MS JANA DOE, Employee of Barnes & Noble Inc. In her individual capacity, Acting under Color of federal and State Law. Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and others
Dickson v. Barnes & Noble Inc. et al
as 4:2015cv00051
Plaintiff:
John M. Dickson, Jr.
Defendant:
Barnes & Noble Inc., Lynda Magee, Jana Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Lawrence Combs v. Harold Clarke
as 13-7637
Petitioner - Appellant:
LAWRENCE EDWARD COMBS, a/k/a Lawrence E. Combs
Respondent - Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
Respondent:
CIRCUIT COURT FOR CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA
Combs v. Circuit Court for City of Hampton, Virginia
as 3:2012cv00676
Petitioner:
Lawrence E. Combs
Respondent:
Circuit Court for City of Hampton, Virginia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2012cv00106
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Bobby Bland v. B. Robert
as 12-1671
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BOBBY BLAND, DANIEL RAY CARTER, JR., DAVID W. DIXON and others
Defendant - Appellee:
B. J. ROBERTS, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the City of Hampton, Virginia
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.
