Justin S. Anand

How Judge Anand rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2012-06-04
Education
Swarthmore College, B.A., 1993; Harvard Law School, J.D.
Signed orders read
24

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Bernstein v. Georgia Department of Education et al.
1:11-cv-03989-WSD-JSA · 2013-09-04
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“On July 15, 2013, Magistrate Judge Anand issued his R&R recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Final Report and Recommendation [46] is ADOPTED, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [34] is GRANTED.”

United States v. Jim C. Beck
1:19-cr-00184-MHC-JSA · 2019-12-12
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“the Report and Recommendation ('R&R') of Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand [Doc. 45] recommending that Defendant's Amended Motion to Disqualify Counsel and to Suppress Statements ... be denied. ... the Court ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 45] as the Opinion and Order of the Court. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Amended Motion to Disqualify and to Suppress Statements [Doc. 33] is DENIED.”

Garcia-Alvarez v. United States
1:10-cr-00459-WSD-JSA · 2013-03-20
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“The Magistrate Judge recommended that Movant's Section 2255 Motion be dismissed ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Final Report and Recommendation ('R&R') [43] is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant's Section 2255 Motion [21] is DISMISSED. ... Movant is DENIED a certificate of appealability.”

Miller v. Brennan (Postmaster General, USPS)
1:15-cv-00079-CC-JSA · 2016-03-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Magistrate Judge Anand recommends that ... Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ... be granted in part and denied in part. ... the Court ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part the R&R. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 9] to the extent that Plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act are hereby DISMISSED, and the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 9] to the extent that all other claims shall be permitted to proceed”

Thurman v. State of Georgia
1:16-cv-03368-WSD-JSA · 2016-12-06

In a pro se Section 2254 matter, the petitioner ignored Anand's order to pay the fee or seek in forma pauperis status and amend on the proper forms. Anand's R&R recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with a lawful order under Local Rule 41.3(A)(2); District Judge Duffey adopted the recommendation and dismissed without prejudice.

Nembhard v. Barrett Daffin Frappier Levine & Block, LLP et al.
1:17-cv-00746-WSD-JSA · 2018-01-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Final Report and Recommendation [21] is ADOPTED... National's Motion to Dismiss [6] is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Barrett Daffin Frappier Levine & Block, LLP's, Motion to Dismiss [7] is GRANTED.”

Default judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [10] is DENIED, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Furcron v. Mail Centers Plus, LLC
1:14-cv-01188-RWS-JSA · 2015-09-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“In light of the foregoing, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [80] is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this action.”

United States v. Tony Maurice Graves, Wildrego Deandre Jackson, Christopher Joseph Atkins, and Donald Gresham
1:13-cr-00417-LMM-JSA · 2014-04-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Thus, for the reasons explained above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [55] [58] [68] [69] [123] be DENIED IN PART, specifically as to Defendants' arguments that the federal anti-kidnaping statute is unconstitutional on its face.”

Brady-Williams v. United States
1:24-cv-00850-MHC-JSA · 2024-09-16
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Based on the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Angela Brady-Williams's motion to vacate her sentence [Doc. 155] be DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Hines v. MidFirst Bank and McCalla Raymer, LLC
1:12-cv-02527-TWT-JSA · 2013-01-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons discussed above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [2] be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED in its entirety.”

Tlemcani v. Georgia Department of Community Health
1:17-cv-02547-TWT-JSA · 2018-06-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons discussed above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion for Summary Judgment [27] be GRANTED.”

Taylor v. Holt
1:17-cv-02331-TWT-JSA · 2018-06-12
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the instant § 2254 habeas petition [Doc. 1] be DENIED and that this action be DISMISSED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 372 days (N = 6).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 157 days (N = 1).

Judge Anand's directly assigned work includes criminal magistrate-duty matters, Social Security appeals decided with the parties' consent, and occasional consent employment and prisoner civil-rights cases. His broader work also includes recommendations on criminal suppression and habeas matters and on civil dismissal and summary-judgment motions in cases assigned to district judges.

Draft for Judge Anand with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Anand, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Anand's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace