Cases 11 - 20 of 66
NIEVES v. WARDEN, FCI ELKTON
as 2:2019cv17211
Respondent:
WARDEN, FCI ELKTON
Petitioner:
MAXIMINO NIEVES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Keelan Harris v. FBOP, et al
as 19-3585
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KEELAN HARRIS
Defendant / Appellee:
LT. CRAIG BRINKER, J.L. NORWOOD, Former Regional Director, Northeast Region, In His Individual and Official Capacity, BILL STORY, Associate Warden FCI Elkton, In His Individual and Official Capacity and others
Defendant:
FBOP
William Hampton v. Warden FCI Elkton
as 19-10450
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN FCI ELKTON
Petitioner / Appellant:
WILLIAM DOUGLAS HAMPTON
McDonald v. Warden, FCI Elkton
as 4:2018cv02666
Petitioner:
Gary McDonald
Respondent:
Warden, FCI Elkton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Nekvasil v. FCI Elkton
as 4:2017cv02477
Petitioner:
James R. Nekvasil, Jr.
Respondent:
Warden FCI Elkton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Tyrone Collins v. Chief United States Marshal, et al
as 17-10572
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TYRONE COLLINS
Defendant - Appellee:
CHIEF U S MARSHAL, WARDEN FCI ELKTON and DSCC DIRECTOR
Griggs v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
as 3:2017cv00208
Plaintiff:
David M. Griggs
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Steven Meelak and Warden, FCI Elkton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ajamu Osborne v. U.S. Marshal, et al
as 16-11800
Plaintiff - Appellant:
AJAMU S. OSBORNE
Defendant - Appellee:
CHIEF U.S. MARSHAL, Eastern District Virginia, WARDEN, FCI Elkton and DSCC DIRECTOR, doing business as FBOP Designation and Sentence Computation Center
Rafiq v. Chief US Marshal et al
as 3:2016cv02922
Plaintiff:
Mohammad Rafiq
Defendant:
Chief US Marshal, Warden FCI Elkton and DSCC Director
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Horton v. Chief US Marshal et al
as 3:2016cv02805
Plaintiff:
Jerrod Horton
Defendant:
Chief US Marshal, Warden FCI Elkton and DSCC Director
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
