Joan Glazer Margolis

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut magistrate Retired 2018 · served 1985–2018 2 signed orders read

Judge Margolis no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Margolis 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 she recommends granting the claimant's motion to reverse and remanding where the ALJ's findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

“This Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Ruling ... Plaintiffs Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner [Doc. 19] is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this Ruling.”

Procedural preferences

She resolves prisoner civil-rights and other civil matters by recommended ruling, granting a defendant's summary judgment where the claim fails, with the district judge adopting the recommendation.

“the recommended ruling of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 60] is accepted and adopted. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 47] is granted, and judgment shall enter accordingly.”

Cautions

Where substantial evidence supports the ALJ she recommends denying the claimant's motion to reverse and granting the Commissioner's motion to affirm.

“Judge Margolis recommended that Leroy's motion be denied and the Commissioner's cross-motion be granted.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

McNamara v. Lantz
3:06-cv-00093-PCD · 2008-09-16
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the recommended ruling of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 60] is accepted and adopted. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 47] is granted, and judgment shall enter accordingly.”

Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“in a seven page ruling issued on September 5, 2008, Magistrate Judge Margolis denied the Motion for Reconsideration. [Doc. No. 69]”

Lanoue v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
3:07-cv-01756-JBA · 2009-09-25
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Magistrate Judge Joan Glazer Margolis issued a Recommended Ruling granting summary judgment to Plaintiff Gail A. Lanoue and denying it to Defendant Prudential ... Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 29] is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“ADOPTS the Recommended Ruling [Doc # 45]. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 30] is DENIED ...”

Koutrakos v. Astrue
3:11-cv-00306 · 2012-04-13
Motion to reverse (plaintiff) Granted in part

“This Court APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Ruling ... Plaintiffs Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner [Doc. 19] is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this Ruling.”

Motion to affirm (defendant) Denied

“The Defendant's Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner [Doc. 23] is DENIED.”

Jerolmon v. Astrue
3:11-cv-00018 · 2012-06-18
Judgment on pleadings (plaintiff) Denied

“Judge Margolis filed a Recommended Ruling ('R.R.') which, if accepted by the Court, would affirm the decision of the Commissioner and deny Plaintiff disability benefits.”

Leroy v. Colvin
3:13-cv-00097 · 2015-02-06
Motion to reverse (plaintiff) Denied

“In a Recommended Ruling ('RR') [Doc. 24], Judge Margolis recommended that Leroy's motion be denied and the Commissioner's cross-motion be granted.”

Motion to affirm (defendant) Granted

“Judge Margolis recommended that Leroy's motion be denied and the Commissioner's cross-motion be granted.”

Desmond v. Astrue
3:08-cv-00927 · 2009-09-16
Motion to reverse (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner, or in the alternative, Motion for Remand for a Rehearing [Doc. #16] is GRANTED IN PART”

Motion to affirm (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner ... is DENIED”

Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion and for Reconsideration ... [Doc. # 18] is DENIED”

Maxwell v. Barnhart
3:99-cv-02126 · 2007-01-31
Motion to reverse (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Magistrate Judge Joan Glazer Margolis issued a Recommended Ruling granting plaintiffs motion in part and remanding the matter 'for further supplementation of the record by a vocational expert and further consideration by an [Administrative Law Judge]' ... the Recommended Ruling will be approved and adopted.”

Motion to affirm (defendant) Denied

“denying defendant's motion in part”

Murray v. Town of Stratford
3:11-cv-00629 · 2014-02-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“defendant Town of Stratford's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 75) is granted in part and denied in part such that summary judgment is entered in defendant Town's favor on Counts One, Two, Three, and Seven, and on Count Five with respect to plaintiffs prior lawsuit, and summary judgment is denied on Count Five with respect to plaintiffs union membership and activity”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“defendant Miron's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 77) is granted in part and denied in part such that summary judgment is granted on Count Eight and on Count Six with respect to plaintiffs prior lawsuit, and summary judgment is denied on Count Six with respect to plaintiffs union membership and activity”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 79) is denied on Counts Five and Six”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiffs Motions to Strike (Dkts. ## 86, 87, 97) are denied”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“this Magistrate Judge filed a Ruling on Defendant Town of Stratford's Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Cause of Action, granting defendant Town's Motion on grounds that plaintiff failed to allege that she was subjected to 'discipline' within the meaning of Conn. Gen.Stat. 31-51q.”

A historical record

Judge Margolis 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.