Barbara L. Major
How Judge Major rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Major decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security disability appeals she applies the post-2017 regulatory framework (20 C.F.R. 404.1520c; Woods v. Kijakazi), reviewing an ALJ's treatment of medical opinions for supportability and consistency, and recommends affirming the Commissioner where that standard is met.
“recommending the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant.”
On prisoner Eighth Amendment claims she recommends summary judgment for the defense where the surviving claim lacks evidence from which a jury could find deliberate indifference.
“Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major's Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’), which recommends granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ... the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major's R&R and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major's Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’), which recommends granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ... the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major's R&R and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major's Report and Recommendation, (‘R&R,’ ECF No. 20), recommending the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment ... the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS Judge Major's R&R, DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment.”
“recommending the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant.”
“Judge Major's R & R on the cross motions for summary judgment recommends that Plaintiff Lawrence Michael Demko's motion be denied and the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's motion be granted.”
“recommends that Plaintiff Lawrence Michael Demko's motion be denied and the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's (‘Commissioner’) motion be granted.”
“the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Major's well reasoned R&R in its entirety GRANTING Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC ... The R&R finds that Plaintiff's ex post facto claim ... should be dismissed without prejudice. The R&R recommends that Plaintiff's due process claim should be dismissed without leave to amend”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Major's R&R and GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18). However, while Judge Major recommends that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Arguilez, (see R&R 15), and his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Nevarez, (id. at 18), the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to re-plead these claims with additional factual allegations.”
“Accordingly, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 87), (2) ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety, and (3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63). Specifically, the Court (1) DENIES Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Garcia, (2) GRANTS Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Martinez to the extent it is based upon conduct underlying the RVR and DENIES the Motion as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendant Martinez to the extent it is based upon conduct unrelated to the RVR, and (3) GRANTS Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Casian.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 41], GRANTS the Motion [Doc. 36], and AWARDS a total of $2,565.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney, James McDanel of the Law Offices of James McDanel, jointly and severally. Based on the foregoing, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 109) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY; (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all Defendants (Doc. # 65) is GRANTED; (3) the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Lemus (Doc. # 82) is DENIED; and (4) the Rule 56(f) motion filed by Plaintiff (Doc. # 103; Doc. # 112) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.8) is adopted in its entirety. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent (ECF No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation; (2) granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; and (3) dismissing this action in its entirety without prejudice.”
“For the reasons outlined above, IT HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying the Petition with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court DENIES Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel and RECOMMENDS that the District Judge issue an order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying the Petition.”
Draft for Judge Major with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Major, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Major's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace