Philip R. Lammens
How Judge Lammens rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lammens
Philip R. Lammens has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Ocala Division of the Middle District of Florida since July 2012. He earned his law degree from the University of Florida and previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney and a Justice Department attorney.
Judge Lammens's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lammens, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Submit no proposed order unless directed; when requested, email a Word copy to chambers.
“If the Court requests a proposed order, a copy should be submitted in Microsoft Word® format to the chambers email. Generally, parties should not submit proposed orders unless directed to.”
Motions
Designate emergency motions in the caption, serve opposing counsel and necessary nonparties by hand delivery or an equivalent method, and notify the clerk.
“Emergency motions should be designated as such in the caption of the motion. Emergency motions should be served on opposing counsel, and any necessary non-parties, by hand delivery or other equivalent method of service. You must notify the Clerk’s office that you have filed an emergency motion.”
Conferences
For an evidentiary hearing, submit three exhibit binders with marked exhibit tags and numbers.
“If an evidentiary hearing is being conducted, each party shall submit three (3) Exhibit Binders to the Court. The copies should be marked with exhibit tags and appropriate exhibit numbers.”
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 Lammens decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Revised post-2017 SSA medical-opinion regulations (20 C.F.R. 416.920c / 404.1520c): the ALJ no longer owes any deference to a treating source's opinion; a check-box medical source statement (here, extreme sit/stand/off-task/absence limitations) can properly be found not persuasive where it is contradicted by the consultative examiner, by the source's OWN treatment notes, and by the objective exam findings. Re-arguing the treating opinion is improperly asking the court to reweigh evidence under deferential substantial-evidence review.
“Under the revised regulations, the ALJ was not required to give deference to the opinion. ... substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to give greater credit to the opinion of the consultative examiner and the largely unremarkable findings in the treatment notes.”
In Greene v. Commissioner of Social Security, Lammens affirmed the denial of benefits because the administrative law judge gave record-supported reasons to discount the claimant's reported symptoms, including relatively normal examinations and her regular 20-hour workweek. He found no requirement to discuss each regulatory symptom factor separately.
“The Court agrees that the ALJ had explicit and adequate reasons to reject Plaintiff’s allegations regarding her symptoms and limitations.”
A class-of-one equal-protection claim needs concrete facts showing genuinely similar comparators; general assertions that unspecified others received better treatment are not enough. Municipal-liability allegations likewise must connect an identified policy or custom to the asserted constitutional injury.
“Here, Plaintiffs’ speculative and vague allegations that they were treated differently from other unspecified parties fails to state an equal protection claim.”
In the selected telephone-consumer case, specific allegations that the claimant never consented to calls and sent a clear cease-and-desist letter defeated a consent-based dismissal argument at the pleading stage.
“Plaintiff specifically alleges that he did not provide his prior express consent, and he adds that he sent an unequivocal cease and desist letter.”
In Mainstream Engineering, the court set aside a clerk’s default when the defendant moved promptly after learning of it, showed no willful delay, and identified a potential defense.
“there is no suggestion of willfulness in the delay in serving the responsive pleading, and Defendant has identified meritorious defenses.”
An uncontested sealing request still requires good cause. In Hanubal, Lammens denied sealing after the document had remained public for nine months and identified redaction of the potentially confidential dollar amount as a narrower option.
“which could easily be redacted without sealing the entire document.”
Procedural preferences
A request for clerk's default before substituted service was complete was premature. Lammens denied the request without prejudice and allowed renewal if the defendants later failed to respond.
“the instant motion is premature.”
In Anderson, Lammens denied a combined case-management and settlement-conference request after finding that it failed to comply with local formatting and conferral rules; he also found several requests premature.
“These violations alone warrant denial of Plaintiff’s motion.”
Cautions
In Chalifoux, the court declined to strike a dismissal motion for a font defect after considering its merits.
“Likewise, while acknowledging that the motion to dismiss was not in the required font, the undersigned went on to address the merits of the motion to dismiss.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated above, the ALJ'S decision is AFFIRMED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions, and close the file.”
“Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is GRANTED and Counts V-VIII are dismissed with leave to amend within 20 days if Plaintiffs can do so in good faith.”
“Based on Plaintiffs’ agreement, Count VIII which seeks injunctive relief is dismissed and all demands for punitive damages are stricken.”
“Upon due consideration, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 34) is GRANTED to the extent that this matter is REMANDED to the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Lake County, Florida.”
“the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for entry of judgment with remand (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. This action is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 19) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,818.88 and costs in the amount of $405.00”
“Defendant’s unopposed motion for entry of judgment with remand (Doc. 13) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s petition for attorney’s fees (Doc. 17) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $7451.08.”
“Plaintiff’s petition for attorney’s fees (Doc. 20) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,199.40 and costs in the amount of $405.00.”
“the ALJ’S decision is AFFIRMED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“the ALJ’S decision is reversed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded for further proceedings”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 36) is due to be denied.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to compel supplemental discovery responses and to determine the sufficiency of certain responses (Doc. 35) is due to be DENIED as moot”
“Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss (Doc. 37) is DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed civil docket is dominated by consent Social Security appeals, with a smaller number of attorney-fee and other consent-civil matters. It provides descriptive context rather than a complete census, and no authoritative case-disposition baseline was available for the period.
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 United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Lammens: 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 Lammens with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lammens, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lammens's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace