Eric J. Markovich
How Judge Markovich rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Markovich
Eric J. Markovich has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona in Tucson since 2014. Before joining the bench, he worked as an Assistant United States Attorney for the district and as a Justice Department trial attorney. He earned degrees from Ohio University and Syracuse University College of Law.
Judge Markovich's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Markovich'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 8, 2026).
How Judge Markovich decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Haines, Markovich recommended denying a personal-jurisdiction motion after finding a prima facie showing tied to a generic employee handbook intended for the Arizona park; the district judge adopted his recommendation.
“Judge Markovich found that Plaintiff had met his burden of establishing a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction, and accordingly recommended that Get Air, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss be denied.”
Procedural preferences
In Witt, Markovich recommended denying a suppression motion after an evidentiary hearing; the district judge largely adopted his recommendation, finding reasonable suspicion for the Border Patrol stop.
“The R&R recommends this Court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress because Agent Gonzalez reasonably suspected criminal activity was afoot when he stopped the Sonic.”
He denied leave to file a surreply when the proposed filing addressed material already covered by the parties and presented no new evidence or extraordinary circumstance.
“The issues Plaintiffs seek to address in their surreply are not new evidence and have been”
Cautions
In Johnston v. Colbert, Markovich recommended dismissing a federal inmate’s habeas petition with prejudice. He concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the individualized placement decision and that the claimed time credits did not compel transfer without statutory eligibility.
“Magistrate Judge Eric Markovich's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 43) is ACCEPTED. ... Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 (Doc. 42) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
In a removal dispute he denied remand after finding complete diversity, an amount in controversy above $75,000, timely removal after the amount became ascertainable, and a harmless delay in notice to the plaintiffs.
“The Court finds that there is complete diversity amongst the parties and the amount”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted. ... (2) Defendants Pima County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is granted. Defendant Pima County Sheriff's Office is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is dismissed without prejudice.”
“(3) Defendants City of Tucson and Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is granted. Defendant Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant City of Tucson is dismissed without prejudice.”
“Judge Markovich's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 158) is accepted and adopted in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Get Air, LLC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 97) is denied.”
“Magistrate Judge Eric Markovich's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 43) is ACCEPTED. ... Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 (Doc. 42) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Petitioner's Motion for Immediate Injunctive and/or Declaratory Relief (Doc. 29) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Defendant's Amended Motion to Suppress (Doc. 73).”
“Accordingly, it is recommended that the District Court revoke the defendant's supervised release.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court recommends that the District Court DENY the Motion to Sever (Doc. 3343).”
“the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge enter an order REVERSING the Commissioner's decision and REMANDING for an award of benefits consistent with this opinion.”
“On February 4, 2026, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’) recommending this Court grant Defendant Pima County’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 45) is GRANTED. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ FAC (Doc. 8) on or before September 29, 2026.”
“Judge GRANT the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and prohibit the government from”
“Limited Sur-Reply (Doc. 18) is DENIED.”
“As discussed below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion for remand.”
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 District of Arizona, not for Judge Markovich: 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 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 135 | 2.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,001 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 335 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,278 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,126 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,181 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,857 | 20.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,128 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,842 | 9.6 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 Markovich with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Markovich, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Markovich's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace