Mark E. Ford

How Judge Ford rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2015-01-03
Education
University of Nebraska at Lincoln (B.A., 1982); University of Arkansas (J.D., 1985)
Signed orders read
13

How Judge Ford decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Procedural preferences

On Social Security appeals he will recommend a sentence-four remand both when the Commissioner moves for one and, on the merits, when he finds the final decision should be reversed; either way the disposition is a remand for further consideration.

“the Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”

In an employment case, the court denied leave to add an individual supervisor because Title VII does not impose individual liability and an official-capacity claim would duplicate the claim against the employer.

“The Court finds that the inclusion of Kori Nooner as a defendant in the case would be futile.”

Cautions

Gives pro se litigants multiple extensions and show-cause opportunities, but ultimately recommends a Rule 41(b) dismissal without prejudice when they fail to file an amended complaint or keep the court apprised; keep your address current and meet his deadlines.

“Despite being given two generous extensions of time to do so, Plaintiff has failed to comply with Court Orders and file his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter.”

Specific objections matter. In two consolidated civil-rights cases, a general assertion that facts remained disputed did not overcome the recommendation because the plaintiff did not identify a fact that would defeat qualified immunity or engage with the analysis.

“Mr. Gladden fails to engage with the R&R in any respect nor identify what facts would warrant the denial of qualified immunity.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Jarrett v. Kijakazi (Comm'r SSA)
3:20-cv-03068-TLB · 2021-08-12
Motions to remand (defendant) Granted

“the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The Commissioner's Motion to Remand (Doc. 17) is GRANTED, and the matter is REMANDED for further consideration pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”

Pilling v. Commissioner, SSA
2:24-cv-02101-TLB · 2025-03-25
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“the Report and Recommendation is proper and is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Accordingly, the Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”

Askew v. White
6:24-cv-06127-SOH-MEF · 2025-02-28

Ford's signed R&R, bearing '/s/ Mark E. Ford,' addressed a pro se prisoner Section 1983 case referred by Chief Judge Hickey. After two generous extensions and two show-cause orders, Ford recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. The recommendation shows his practice of giving pro se litigants repeated chances before recommending dismissal.

Hillard v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
2:24-cv-02151-TLB · 2026-02-05
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”

Hillard v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
2:24-cv-02151-TLB · 2026-04-10
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“The Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 19) is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $8,220.45.”

Harmon v. Youngman
6:24-cv-06109-SOH · 2026-03-06
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 38) should be and hereby is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

United States v. Smith
2:22-cr-20024-TLB-6 · 2026-06-02
Motion for sentence credit (defendant) Denied

“this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear her Motion challenging the execution of her federal sentence. Accordingly, Smith’s Motion for Jail Credit Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) filed on April 15, 2026 (ECF No. 202) is DENIED.”

Ford v. Murray
6:23-cv-06113-SOH-MEF · 2026-01-27
Motion to reopen (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 12) be DENIED and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Gladden v. Huber
2:24-cv-02110-TLB; 2:24-cv-02089-TLB · 2026-07-28
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that the R&R is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50) in the 2110 Case is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint in the 2110 Case and the Second Amended Complaint in the 2089 Case are both DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Bradley v. Bisignano
2:25-cv-02155-MEF · 2026-01-07

The court dismissed the claimant's Social Security action without prejudice after a deficiency notice and a show-cause order failed to produce either the filing fee or an application to proceed without prepayment. No party motion was resolved, so the order is excluded from motion statistics.

Whisman v. Rajabi
6:25-cv-06063-JTS-MEF · 2026-08-17
Motion to reopen discovery (plaintiff) Denied

“reopening the discovery period will not cure the defects in Plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF No. 103) is hereby DENIED.”

Class certification (plaintiff) Denied

“Because Plaintiff is not a licensed attorney, she cannot satisfy the requirements of either Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(g). She can, therefore, only bring the claims raised in her individual capacity and not on behalf of a class.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court finds that the inclusion of Kori Nooner as a defendant in the case would be futile.”

Whisman v. Rajabi
6:25-cv-06063-JTS-MEF · 2026-09-03
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against Separate Defendants Al Rajabi and Jason Engle are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against all Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The reviewed docket work centers on consent Social Security appeals. It also includes voluntary dismissals, a jurisdictional dismissal, Commissioner remand motions, and fee requests; criminal matters and referred recommendations are outside these docket counts.

Draft for Judge Ford with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ford, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Ford's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace