US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
Cases 1 - 10 of 26,349
THRIVEN DESIGN INC v. ASPEN TOPCO II ACQUISITIONS LLC et al
as 3:2024cv00040
Plaintiff:
THRIVEN DESIGN INC and KITCHEN & ASSOCIATES SERVICES INC
Defendant:
ASPEN TOPCO ACQUISITIONS LLC, ASPEN TOPCO CONSTRUCTION LLC and ASPEN TOPCO II
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Whitfield v. Selene Finance, LP
as 5:2024cv00153
Plaintiff:
Lequita R Whitfield
Defendant:
Selene Finance, LP
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
DAVIS v. MONROE et al
as 7:2024cv00050
Plaintiff:
SHELAINE V DAVIS
Defendant:
JUDGE MATT MONROE, JUSTO CABRAL, VALDOSTA POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00152
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
CHAPMAN v. STATE OF GEORGIA
as 5:2024cv00150
Plaintiff:
YAQUAN LAVETT SANDY CHAPMAN
Respondent:
STATE OF GEORGIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
AMERSON v. OLIVER et al
as 5:2024cv00149
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER L AMERSON
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER TYRONE OLIVER, DEPUTY WARDEN DERRICK MCDANIEL, DEPUTY WARDEN CURTIS L JEFFERIES, JR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WOODS v. WIZA
as 4:2024cv00071
Petitioner:
FABIAN WOODS, JR
Respondent:
Warden SCOTT WIZA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HOLLINGSHED v. DAVIS et al
as 5:2024cv00151
Plaintiff:
GARY HOLLINGSHED
Defendant:
SHERIFF DAVID DAVIS and AMBER COOK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LANGHAM v. HUNT
as 5:2024cv00148
Plaintiff:
BRYAN DALE LANGHAM
Defendant:
DR CYNTHIA HUNT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PARKER v. BARNHART
as 5:2024cv00147
Plaintiff:
VRAIMONE GERMAINE PARKER
Defendant:
BARNHART
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.
