Cases 1 - 10 of 792
Rogers v. Bullard
as 5:2024hc02106
Petitioner:
Antwarn Lee Rogers
Respondent:
Jamie Bullard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 2:2024cv00029
Plaintiff:
Kenneth H. Rogers
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Day v. Rich et al
as 5:2024ct03135
Plaintiff:
Roger Charles Day, Jr.
Defendant:
Warden Rich, United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00154
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Charles v. USA
as 1:2024cv00125
Petitioner:
Roger Dale Charles, II
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
ROGERS v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA
as 1:2024cv00301
Plaintiff:
rodney rogers and RODNEY R. ROGERS
Defendant:
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00055
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00056
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
McKiernan v. United States of America
as 7:2024cv00262
Plaintiff:
Roger Alexander Hicks and Timothy McKiernan
Defendant:
United States of America
Interested Party:
Torts Branch USDOJ
TISDALE v. WEAVIL et al
as 1:2024cv00166
Plaintiff:
IVORY JOE TISDALE
Defendant:
T.A. WEAVIL, DANNY ROGERS, VERONICA L. EDMINSTEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
