Eleanor Louise Ross
How Judge Ross decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In trust-fund-tax (26 U.S.C. 6672) cases, treats 'responsible person' status as a matter of status, duty, and authority and resolves it on undisputed indicia (corporate office, check-writing authority, preparing the tax filings, hire/fire power); 'willfulness' is satisfied by paying other creditors with knowledge that withheld taxes are unpaid, and a superior's direction not to pay is no defense.
“Roth once having become an 'otherwise responsible person' to pay over the taxes became obligated by statute to pay these funds to the Internal Revenue Service. He was under no obligations to obey instructions from his corporate supervisor not to do so.”
Procedural preferences
Enforces Local Rule 7.1B strictly: a motion left unopposed is deemed unopposed and granted on that basis (while also noting the merits). Will not let a party relitigate a consolidated proceeding through a parallel state-court suit ('forum shopping').
“Handy Land has not responded to that motion. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is deemed unopposed, and the Court grants it for this reason. See LR 7.1B, NDGa (‘Failure to file a response shall indicate that there is no opposition to the motion.’). Moreover, the Court would grant Transco's motion to dismiss for the well-stated reasons in the motion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 18]”
“and GRANTS the United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 23]. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint for refund.”
“the Court DENIES Handy Land Timber's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 10)”
“GRANTS Defendant Transco's Motion to Dismiss (Doc, No. 9); DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff Handy Land Timber's Amended Motion for a TRO (Doc. No. 3); and DISMISSES THIS CASE.”
“DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff Handy Land Timber's Amended Motion for a TRO (Doc. No. 3)”
“the Court (1) GRANTS IN PART as to Ground 2(2) only, and that Petitioner be allowed to file an out-of-time appeal in accordance with the procedure described in United States v. Phillips, 225 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2000), and (2) DISMISSES IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all other grounds presented. Additionally, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.”
“the Court DISMISSES Movant's § 2255 Motion [Doc. 19] as untimely. Additionally, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability because after considering 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
“DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc 11]”
“and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Under the Second Amendment. [Doc. 32-1.]”
“The Court therefore denies Defendant’s request made pursuant to §3582(c)(2).”
“the Court DENIES Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion [Doc. 120]”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 139 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 155.5 days (N = 6).
Mix from case-level docket records (filed December 2022); most carry no nature-of-suit string and no administrative case-closure row (recent filings). General civil docket weighted to consumer (debt-collection and credit-reporting), insurance, and personal-injury/products removals.
Put Judge Ross's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Ross actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Ross's own signed orders and cites them.