Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Wetzel v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2026cv01425
Plaintiff:
Priscilla Wetzel
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Wetzel v. Bisignano
as 3:2026cv02005
Plaintiff:
Sean M. Wetzel
Defendant:
Frank Bisignano
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Abramczyk et al v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated et al
as 0:2026cv03055
Plaintiff:
Autumn Abramczyk, Trudy Agres, Roxanne Allen and others
Defendant:
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, OptumInsight, Inc., Change Healthcare, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Aquil Johnson v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al
as 26-2643
Plaintiff:
AQUIL JOHNSON
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN E. WETZEL, MARK GARMAN and others
Berlin Brown v. G. Clemens, et al
as 26-2663
Plaintiff:
BERLIN VANARDO BROWN
Defendant:
CCPM CLEMENS, PREA Coordinator SCI-Camp Hill, PAROLE AGENT PATIA, Employee of the Pennsylvania Dept. of Parole and Probation-SCI- Dallas, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BENNINGS, SCI-Camp Hill and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2026cv00140
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Myron Moton v. M. Garmen, et al
as 26-2558
Plaintiff:
MYRON MOTON
Defendant:
MR. M. GARMEN, Superintendent of SCI-Rockview/no longer employed by DOC, DEPUTY HOUSER, Deputy at SCI-Rockview, CAPTAIN VANGORDER, SCI-Rockview and others
Wetzel v. Louisiana Parole Board et al
as 3:2026cv00601
Petitioner:
Andrew David Wetzel
Respondent:
Louisiana Parole Board and Todd Blanche
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
WETZEL v. NOVO NORDISK A/S et al
as 2:2026cv03589
Plaintiff:
CARRIE WETZEL
Defendant:
NOVO NORDISK A/S, NOVO NORDISK INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
