Margaret Catharine Rodgers
How Judge Rodgers decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment she holds the MOVANT to the full Celotex burden: a defendant cannot win by reciting a 'punch list' of 'bald assertions' that the plaintiff lacks evidence -- it must point to specific record portions demonstrating an absence of evidence. Denied a products-liability defendant's MSJ on that basis where plaintiff + provider testimony created a triable failure-to-warn / learned-intermediary issue.
“Defendants' 'punch list' of 'bald assertions' that Smith has failed to produce evidence in support of her claims or that she will not prevail at trial does not satisfy their summary judgment burden of pointing to 'specific portions of the record' that demonstrate 'an absence of evidence' supporting Smith's theories of liability.”
Procedural preferences
Resolves much of her docket through magistrate-judge Reports & Recommendations, which she reviews de novo and adopts (over objections or where none are filed). Pensacola-division civil and prisoner matters dominate the sampled R&R-adoption orders.
“Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.”
Cautions
Enforces jurisdictional limits: dismissed a section 2241 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction and granted a federal agency's Rule 12(b)(1) motion in an employment suit, entering judgment for the government.
“Respondent's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED, and the section 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Secretary Mabus.”
“The Defendants' Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF Doc. 53) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 are DISMISSED from the case.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Doc. 49) and Second Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Doc. 51) are DENIED in their entirety.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close the file.”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED, and the section 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.”
“Petitioner's 'Rule 65, Injunctive Relief' motion, ECF No. 17, is DENIED without prejudice to raising such claims by filing a section 1983 complaint;”
“Petitioner's 'Motion for Summary Judgment per Rule 56,' ECF No. 25, is DENIED.”
“The requested relief is GRANTED. ... The state law claims (4th and 5th claims for relief) asserted in Bay State's Third-Party Complaint (doc. 17) are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal (doc. 8) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal (doc. 8) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“The Remand Wave 1 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on 3M Company's Full and Independent Liability for CAEv2-Related Injuries, ECF No. 3506-1, is GRANTED, consistent with this Order.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the Government Contractor Defense, ECF No. 1071-68, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on the Government Contractor Defense, ECF No. 1072, is GRANTED.”
“the parties' respective omnibus motions to exclude or limit expert testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert, ECF Nos. 1595 and 1605, are granted in part and denied in part, consistent with this Order, as to the following experts: Elliott Berger, Drs. John House, Derek Jones, ...”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 135 days (N = 16).
Two views. (1) Her routine Pensacola-division docket (a 2016 cohort): prisoner civil-rights (42:1983), state habeas (2254), FDCPA, multiple FLSA wage-hour, ERISA benefits, trademark, Equal Pay Act, removed personal-injury, mortgage/civil-rights, and Social Security. (2) Her headline docket: she presided over the 3M Combat Arms earplugs MDL (MDL 2885) -- one of the largest MDLs in U.S. history -- and the Abilify (aripiprazole) products-liability MDL (MDL 2734); these dominate her docket enumeration and the court's filing counts. Cases are referred to the division's magistrate judges for reports and recommendations.
Put Judge Rodgers's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Rodgers actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Rodgers's own signed orders and cites them.