Barbara L. Major

United States District Court for the Southern District of California magistrate 12 signed orders read

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.

Turely v. Laqunas
3:23-cv-00231-LL-BLM · 2024-11-20
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Klaas v. Kijakazi (Commissioner of Social Security)
3:22-cv-00460-L-BLM · 2023-09-13
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“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.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“recommending the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant.”

Demko v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:15-cv-00906-LAB-BLM · 2016-03-16
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“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.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“recommends that Plaintiff Lawrence Michael Demko's motion be denied and the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's (‘Commissioner’) motion be granted.”

Wallach v. Melanson
3:12-cv-01886-AJB-BLM · 2013-09-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) 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”

Carson v. Martinez
3:16-cv-01736 · 2017-08-03
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Carson v. Martinez
3:16-cv-01736 · 2019-09-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Dr. Lokesh Tantuwaya MD, Inc. v. JetSuite, Inc.
3:19-cv-00049 · 2024-01-09
Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Daughtery v. Wilson
3:08-cv-00408 · 2009-08-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Roberts v. Uribe
3:11-cv-02665 · 2012-05-24
Motions to dismiss (respondent) 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.”

Carrea v. Cate
3:08-cv-02295 · 2009-07-09
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted

“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.”

Cunningham v. Marshall
3:07-cv-02183 · 2010-05-25
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“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.”

Taylor v. Beard
3:11-cv-01165 · 2013-04-02
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“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.”

Motion to appoint counsel (petitioner) Denied

Put Judge Major's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Major actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Major's own signed orders and cites them.