Justin S. Anand
How Judge Anand rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Anand
Justin S. Anand is the chief United States magistrate judge for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta. He joined the court in June 2012 after practicing law and serving as an assistant United States attorney in the district.
Judge Anand's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Anand's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Anand decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Waszut, Anand treated whether the charged social-media words were a true threat as a jury issue when the indictment did not rule out a threat as a matter of law. He recommended denying pretrial dismissal; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“Rather, Defendant’s arguments raise issues for the jury’s determination.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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”
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.
“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.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Barrett Daffin Frappier Levine & Block, LLP's, Motion to Dismiss [7] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [10] is DENIED, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“In light of the foregoing, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [80] is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this action.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“For the reasons discussed above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion for Summary Judgment [27] be GRANTED.”
“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.
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 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Northern District of Georgia, not for Judge Anand: 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 | 6,703 | 4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 640 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 4,138 | 1.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,901 | 11.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 31.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,703 | 4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,190 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 8,614 | 13.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,403 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,908 | 6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,463 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,954 | 6.2 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 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