Nandor J. Vadas
Judge Vadas no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Vadas decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals, remands where the ALJ discounted a treating physician's opinion in favor of non-examining state-agency reviewers whose reports predated the treatment record.
“For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings in accordance with this Order.”
Procedural preferences
Reaches the merits even on an unopposed summary-judgment motion rather than granting it on the procedural posture alone.
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 36) is GRANTED.”
Cautions
Recommends enforcing a settlement reached on the record, rejecting a party's later attempt to add terms not stated at the conference.
“Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Senior District Judge Armstrong GRANT Defendant’s motion for enforcement of the settlement.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
Section 1915A screening Order of Service in a pro se state-prisoner Section 1983 deliberate-indifference suit in which the parties later consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. On screening the amended complaint, Vadas allowed inadequate-medical-care claims to proceed against two treating physicians, dismissed the supervisory defendants with prejudice for failure to allege personal involvement, and granted the plaintiff's extension motion. The dismissals arose from screening rather than a contested party motion.
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 36) is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings in accordance with this Order.”
“the court will grant Lockwood’s motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND REMANDING CASE”
“Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Senior District Judge Armstrong GRANT Defendant’s motion for enforcement of the settlement.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Vadas's directly assigned North Coast caseload was dominated by Social Security disability appeals, alongside pro se state-prisoner habeas and civil-rights suits, criminal matters, and occasional government-enforcement actions. In 17 consent Social Security appeals decided on contested cross-motions from 2005 through 2014, claimants prevailed in full or in part in roughly half and the agency was affirmed in the rest. The durations below measure filing to termination, not motion-to-ruling time.
A historical record
Judge Vadas no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.