Raymond Paul Moore
How Judge Moore rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Moore decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Applies the magistrate-referral standard of review precisely: reviews an unobjected Findings & Recommendation for clear error only and adopts it, while conducting de novo review of any portion to which a party lodges a sufficiently specific objection.
“the Court OVERRULES Defendants' objection (ECF No. 36), ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the recommendation (ECF No. 35), and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20).”
Willing to raise summary judgment sua sponte under Rule 56(f), with notice and an opportunity to respond, to resolve a dangling counterclaim once the dispositive question is decided.
“summary judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on Defendants' counterclaim for breach of contract”
On objections to nondispositive discovery orders, Moore applies the clearly-erroneous-or-contrary-to-law standard and requires evidence that the magistrate judge made a definite mistake before intervening.
“The Court must have ‘a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”
Cautions
In deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs suits he holds that a detainee's disagreement with the course of treatment is not deliberate indifference and that conclusory municipal-liability allegations fail, and he declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
“the motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 131, 135) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (2) Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 131, 135) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (2) Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“Defendant McDonald's Restaurant of Colorado's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 156) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“the Court OVERRULES Defendants' objection (ECF No. 36), ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the recommendation (ECF No. 35), and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20).”
“summary judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on Defendants' counterclaim for breach of contract”
“Concomitantly, the Court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 191) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 196) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 196) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF Nos. 202, 215).”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 74) is GRANTED”
“the other pending Motions (ECF Nos. 65, 66, 72, 73, 76) are DENIED AS MOOT”
The court accepted an unobjected recommendation and dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders. Because no party motion prompted the disposition, it is retained for context but excluded from motion statistics.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Recency windows (2019-2021) are criminal-dominated; the four contested 2018 civil durations (462-1337 days) run far longer than the criminal/2255 bulk. This is a small illustrative set, not a duration distribution.
Draft for Judge Moore with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Moore, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Moore's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace