Panayotta Diane Augustin-Birch
How Judge Augustin-Birch decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On Social Security appeals she recommends remand where the ALJ erred in discounting a treating-source opinion under Simon v. Commissioner or failed to follow a prior remand order.
“the Court RECOMMENDS GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 19] ... insofar as the Court RECOMMENDS remanding the matter for the ALJ to reevaluate Dr. Castro's opinion and Plaintiff's subjective testimony and to reassess Plaintiff's RFC.”
Where the government does not oppose a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), she recommends prompt relief: an individualized hearing within five days or release.
“The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that the Petition [DE 1] be GRANTED insofar as Respondents be ordered to, within five days, either afford Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge or release him.”
Procedural preferences
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion she recommends dismissal without prejudice with a short window to amend where the complaint is deficient but curable.
“Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, [ECF No. 27], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED ... Defendant Apple, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, [ECF No. 9], is GRANTED; The Complaint, [ECF No. 1], is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; Plaintiff may seek leave to amend his complaint within twenty (20) days of this Order.”
On arbitration, she enforces an unchallenged delegation clause, treats limited litigation participation as insufficient waiver, recommends a statutory stay, and declines new relief raised for the first time in reply.
“the Court RECOMMENDS GRANTING Defendant's Motion [DE 45]. Furthermore, in accordance with 9 U.S.C § 3, the Court additionally recommends staying this matter pending arbitration. Lastly, the Court does not recommend granting any of the relief Defendant requests in its reply”
Cautions
On a Section 1983 'class of one' equal-protection claim she recommends summary judgment for the defendant where the plaintiff fails to identify a similarly situated comparator under the Eleventh Circuit's Griffin Industries standard.
“Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 167] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Defendant's Joint Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 127] is GRANTED. ... Judge Augustin-Birch recommended to this Court that Summary Judgment be granted in favor of the Defendants on the grounds that Hybrid Pharma failed to identify sufficient comparators for a 'class of one' claim.”
A closed case will not be reopened when the plaintiff still has not supplied a complaint establishing subject-matter jurisdiction; repackaging the requested relief does not cure that threshold defect.
“Plaintiff still has not filed any Complaint that demonstrates the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case [DE 21] be DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, [ECF No. 27], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED ... Defendant Apple, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, [ECF No. 9], is GRANTED; The Complaint, [ECF No. 1], is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; Plaintiff may seek leave to amend his complaint within twenty (20) days of this Order.”
“Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 167] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Defendant's Joint Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 127] is GRANTED. ... Judge Augustin-Birch recommended to this Court that Summary Judgment be granted in favor of the Defendants on the grounds that Hybrid Pharma failed to identify sufficient comparators for a 'class of one' claim.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 19] ... insofar as the Court RECOMMENDS remanding the matter for the ALJ to reevaluate Dr. Castro's opinion and Plaintiff's subjective testimony and to reassess Plaintiff's RFC.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS ... DENYING Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 17].”
“In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch recommends that Plaintiff's Motion be granted and that the Court award $10,900 in attorney's fees. ... the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R [ECF No. 23]. ... Plaintiff's Unopposed Petition for Attorney Fees [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $10,900 in attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d).”
In this pro se screening matter, Judge Augustin-Birch denied leave to proceed without prepaying fees after the plaintiff failed to appear and establish indigency. She later recommended dismissal for failure to pay the fee, comply with court orders, and prosecute; District Judge Darrin P. Gayles adopted the recommendation and dismissed without prejudice.
“Plaintiff still has not filed any Complaint that demonstrates the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case [DE 21] be DENIED.”
“As Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to grant any relief in this case, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Affidavit of Truth [DE 20] be DENIED.”
“The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that the Petition [DE 1] be GRANTED insofar as Respondents be ordered to, within five days, either afford Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge or release him.”
“In accordance with Florida law, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Continuing Writ of Garnishment Against Salary, Wages and Director's Fees [DE 27] be GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS GRANTING Defendant's Motion [DE 45]. Furthermore, in accordance with 9 U.S.C § 3, the Court additionally recommends staying this matter pending arbitration.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 28 days (N = 2).
Descriptive, not a base rate. Her civil dispositive work reaches the record via district-judge adoption orders (she is the referral magistrate). Her direct docket is criminal-duty plus pro se civil.
Put Judge Augustin-Birch's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Augustin-Birch actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Augustin-Birch's own signed orders and cites them.