James R. Marschewski
How Judge Marschewski decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On referred pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 jail-conditions cases he parses a defendant's omnibus summary-judgment motion claim-by-claim, recommending it be granted on some claims and denied on others rather than all-or-nothing; expect a granted_in_part disposition where some claims survive to trial.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims that he was provided an inadequate diet ... The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's claim that his First Amendment rights were violated.”
Cautions
He will recommend a Rule 41(b) dismissal when a pro se plaintiff fails to comply with a court order or prosecute the case; keep your case moving and obey the court's orders.
“this action is DISMISSED on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order and has failed to prosecute this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted in part: 2 | counts only |
| Preliminary injunction N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted in toto. ... defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted with respect to Sheriff Mike Allen and all claims against him are dismissed. The motion is denied with respect to plaintiff's claims against Charles Wall.”
“The report and recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims that he was provided an inadequate diet and his meals were served in an unsanitary environment. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's claim that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was denied access to newspapers or other media sources.”
“The report and recommendation is proper and should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction should be and is hereby entered in favor of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. ... Tempur-Pedic is ordered to post-bond in the amount of $500,000.”
Pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 case. Marschewski's R&R (Doc. 20, filed 2008-02-26) recommended dismissal for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hendren adopted it (no objections filed) and dismissed. Procedural -- excluded from motion stats. R&R-to-adoption latency 15 days.
Pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 excessive-force claim. After an EARLIER Marschewski R&R recommending summary judgment for defendants on the other claims (Doc. 39, adopted at Doc. 44), the remaining individual-capacity claim was referred back under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B); Marschewski held an evidentiary hearing (2008-12-02) and issued an R&R recommending JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT Koppenhaver (no constitutional violation). Hendren reviewed de novo, overruled plaintiff's objections, and adopted it in toto, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Recorded as a dispositive post-hearing merits recommendation, NOT a party-motion grant -- excluded from the by_motion_type aggregation. Shows Marschewski conducting evidentiary hearings on referred prisoner claims and making credibility/merits findings.