Monte C. Richardson
How Judge Richardson rules, drawn from 3 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Richardson
Monte C. Richardson has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Jacksonville Division of the Middle District of Florida since June 2003. A graduate of American University’s Washington College of Law, he previously clerked on the Eleventh Circuit and served as an Assistant United States Attorney.
Judge Richardson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Richardson's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 10, 2026).
How Judge Richardson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Tomasiello v. Commissioner of Social Security, Richardson affirmed the denial of benefits because the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ explained why the claimant’s symptom reports were only partly consistent with the record and considered statements from nonmedical witnesses.
“As instructed by the regulations, the ALJ considered the objective medical evidence as well as Plaintiff's own statements and articulated specific and adequate reasons for finding Plaintiff's subjective complaints not entirely consistent with the evidence.”
Pointing to contrary evidence is not enough on substantial-evidence review; the claimant must show that substantial evidence supporting the administrative conclusion is absent.
“[Plaintiff] must do more than point to evidence”
In Ezzell v. Commissioner of Social Security, Richardson affirmed the denial of benefits despite the administrative law judge's omission of a borderline visuomotor processing score. The decision discussed the examiner's report and the claimant had not shown how the score required an additional work limitation.
“Plaintiff taking issue with the ALJ’s omission of Dr. Dabrowski’s mention of her borderline visuomotor processing speed is unconvincing because the ALJ need not address every piece of evidence in the record.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. 2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions, and close the file.”
“The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.”
“The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed 2014-2024 matters consist mostly of Social Security appeals that Judge Richardson decided as the final judge with the parties' consent under 28 U.S.C. section 636(c). The group includes contested affirmances and reversals as well as sentence-four remands conceded by the Commissioner. It provides descriptive context rather than a caseload-wide rate.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Richardson: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 49 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,492 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 319 | 14.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,115 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,777 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,781 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,749 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,392 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 6,830 | 5.7 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Richardson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Richardson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Richardson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace