Michael E. Hegarty
How Judge Hegarty rules, drawn from 1 signed order. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Hegarty no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Hegarty
Michael E. Hegarty served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Colorado from 2006 until his retirement in 2025, including service as Chief Magistrate Judge. Before joining the bench, he led the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado and clerked for District Judge Dale E. Saffels.
How Judge Hegarty decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Lewis’s fee dispute, he found that the defendant’s request for dismissal under Rule 12(b) had to be treated as a Rule 12(c) motion because of its procedural posture.
“to the extent the Defendant sought dismissal pursuant to Rule 12 in its combined motion, such request was not proper under subsection (b) ... and would have been required to be treated under subsection (c) as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Before the court is the amended recommendation (Doc. 65) of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty that the court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40). ... Defendants' motion (Doc. 40) is GRANTED.”
“The Recommendation (ECF No. 188) is ADOPTED in its entirety; ... Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 168) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 171) is DENIED as set forth above”
“the Court will ... accept Judge Hegarty's recommendation to grant Omnicell's motion for summary judgment and deny Mr. Barnes' motion for summary judgment. ... Defendant Omnicell, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 45] is GRANTED.”
“plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 43] is DENIED.”
“the Court denies Defendant City of Littleton's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs [filed February 28, 2019; ECF No. 242].”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
These are administrative-duty matters, so the durations measure case lifespan rather than merits-motion timing and do not represent his dispositive work. His civil consent and referral caseload is not included in this caseload snapshot.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Hegarty was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2024.
| 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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Hegarty no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.