Jerusha T. Adams
How Judge Adams rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Adams
Jerusha T. Adams became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Alabama in November 2019. She previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney and practiced civil litigation in Montgomery. She earned degrees from Western Michigan University and Emory University School of Law.
Judge Adams's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Adams's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Adams decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Macon v. Bisignano, Adams reversed and remanded a Social Security decision because the ALJ’s mischaracterizations of the claimant’s treatment history undermined the finding of noncompliance.
“Because the ALJ’s mischaracterizations and inaccuracies concerning Plaintiff’s noncompliance taint the record, the Court concludes the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was noncompliant with his treatment is not supported by substantial evidence.”
In a full bench trial on a breach-of-contract and account-stated dispute, she resolved conflicting testimony largely on witness credibility: crediting a witness who 'testified in a thoughtful, candid, and consistent manner' and whose account 'withstood scrutiny on cross examination,' while discounting the opposing witness as 'not credible' because his 'demeanor on the stand was combative and evasive' and he 'contradicted himself multiple times on cross examination.'
“The Court finds Frank Petrusnek to be a credible witness. He testified in a thoughtful, candid, and consistent manner. His testimony withstood scrutiny on cross examination... In comparison, the Court finds Abraham Summers not credible. His demeanor on the stand was combative and evasive. He contradicted himself multiple times on cross examination.”
An unpled affirmative defense is treated as waived even when raised for the first time in post-trial proposed findings: she declined to consider a mitigation-of-damages defense that was not included in the answer.
“This affirmative defense is not included in MIA's answer... Mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense, and failure to plead an affirmative defense results in waiver of that defense.”
Procedural preferences
In Mims v. Corizon, Adams transferred a prisoner’s medical-care suit to the Northern District of Alabama under the venue statute and expressly left the merits undecided.
“In light of the foregoing and in accordance with applicable federal law, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is transferred... In transferring this case, the court makes no determination with respect to the merits of the claims pending in this civil action.”
In McDowell v. Alabama Department of Public Health, Adams dismissed official-capacity claims against individual employees as claims against the employing agency already named in the case.
“Official capacity suits are suits against state agencies, not against the people through whom agencies act... a victory against a named individual in an official capacity suit is 'a victory against the entity that employs him.'”
In the reviewed discovery dispute, requests for dismissal and expenses made only in a reply brief were not treated as motions.
“Defendant did not request such relief in its motion to compel, and the undersigned declines to construe the reply brief as containing motions for expenses or dismissal.”
Cautions
In McDowell v. Alabama Department of Public Health, Adams found that the plaintiff’s allegations of ostracism and offensive remarks lacked facts connecting the conduct to race, and held that the allegations did not survive the Department’s dismissal motion.
“Plaintiff alleges no facts which support his conclusory allegation that he was completely ostracized. Nor does Plaintiff allege facts that support that this harassment was based on race... It is never appropriate to call someone 'half a person.' Still, under the law of the Eleventh Circuit, Plaintiff's allegations are not enough to survive the Department's motion to dismiss.”
In the reviewed posttrial request, an asserted failure by the movant’s own lawyer did not support relief for misconduct by an opposing party under Rule 60(b)(3).
“To the extent Plaintiff contends his own counsel deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to present his case, that argument does not entitle him to relief from judgment because Plaintiff’s counsel is not ‘an opposing party.’”
In the reviewed removal order, allegations about an LLC’s owners were inadequate to establish the members’ citizenship and therefore diversity jurisdiction.
“allegations of citizenship of a limited liability entity’s owners will not be accepted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the undersigned finds that the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is due to be GRANTED”
“it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).”
“the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).”
A sua sponte order transferring a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 medical-care claim to the Northern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a) once the case narrowed to a correctional facility located in that district; this venue determination did not rule on a party motion. 'ORDERED that this case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a). In transferring this case, the court makes no determination with respect to the merits of the claims pending in this civil action.'
A sua sponte recommendation transferring a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 claim against a state court, prosecutor, and defense counsel to the Southern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. Section 1406, the district where the underlying state criminal proceeding and the individual defendants were located; this venue determination did not rule on a party motion. 'it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a).'
A sua sponte recommendation transferring a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 claim against a county sheriff, a state circuit judge, and a prosecutor to the Northern District of Alabama, the district where the underlying incident and all named defendants were located; this venue determination did not rule on a party motion. 'the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).'
A sua sponte recommendation transferring a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 COVID-19 prison-conditions claim to the Southern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the district where the correctional facility and the individually responsible officials were located; this venue determination did not rule on a party motion. 'it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).'
“The Commissioner's unopposed motion (Doc. No. 15 ) is GRANTED. 2. The decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED. 3. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“The Commissioner's unopposed motion (Doc. No. 21 ) is GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 15) is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED. This action is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“The Commissioner’s unopposed motion (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED. The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED. This matter is REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Her sampled consent-jurisdiction caseload spans Social Security disability appeals (the largest single category), Title VII/Section 1981 employment discrimination, a prisoner Eighth Amendment medical-care suit, a municipal excessive-force case, a commercial breach-of-contract dispute resolved by a full bench trial, and a Federal Tort Claims Act case: consistent with a general consent civil docket with a strong Social Security component, typical of this court's magistrate judges.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 9 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 18 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 22 | 2 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, not for Judge Adams: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 581 | 7.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 45 | 3.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 525 | 7.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 25 months |
| Closed during trial | 1 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 581 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 485 | 9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 581 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 546 | 13 months |
| Sep 2021 | 502 | 12.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 527 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 508 | 10.8 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Adams with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Adams, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Adams's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace