James E. Graham
How Judge Graham rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Graham no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Graham
James E. Graham served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Georgia in Brunswick for twenty-seven years before retiring in 2015. He later returned on temporary recall to handle matters in the Savannah Division. R. Stan Baker succeeded him at the Brunswick court.
How Judge Graham decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Powell v. Woods, Graham found a genuine factual dispute about whether the officer needed to use force against the prisoner and declined to resolve that issue on summary judgment.
“There exists a genuine dispute as to whether Woods needed to use any force against Plaintiff... this factual dispute is sufficient to deny Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue. Likewise, this factual dispute is sufficient to deny Defendants' Motion on this issue as well.”
In Lamb v. Davis, Graham recommended dismissing the Section 1983 claim against Sheriff Bennett because the complaint relied on Bennett's supervisory position without alleging personal involvement or a causal connection. The district judge adopted that dismissal.
“As Plaintiff has failed to make this basic showing, his claims against Defendant Bennett should be dismissed.”
In Roberts v. Smith, Graham recommended dismissing monetary-damages claims against prison officials in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment grounds while allowing the individual-capacity claims to continue.
“Because the state of Georgia would be the real party in interest in a suit against Movants in their official capacities, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes them from suit in their official capacities for monetary damages... Plaintiff may proceed with his claims against Movants only in their individual capacities.”
Procedural preferences
In Martin, Graham denied the prisoner's motion to compel because it did not quote each interrogatory and objection as the local rule required, leaving insufficient information to assess the motion.
“L.R. 26.5 provides that Motions to Compel Discovery shall quote verbatim each interrogatory and any objection thereto. Plft has not complied with this requirement; therefore, the court has insufficient information to assess the validity of Plft's motion.”
In Baker v. Furlow, Graham directed the pro se plaintiff to choose which related claims to pursue after finding the complaint's claims appeared unrelated. Baker dropped the claim against Furlow, and Graham recommended dismissing that claim without prejudice while allowing the claim against McPhierson to proceed.
“The undersigned informed Plaintiff that the claims he set forth in his Complaint appeared to be unrelated and directed Plaintiff to advise the Court as to which related claims he wished to pursue.”
Cautions
In Evans v. Bennett, the district judge rejected Graham’s recommendation to dismiss the claim against Newsome but dismissed the claim against Sheriff Bennett.
“ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6 Report and Recommendations. Evans' objection is SUSTAINED in part, and OVERRULED in part. Evans' claims against Newsome is not obviously frivolous, but Evans' claims against Sheriff Bennett is DISMISSED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing, it is my RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Dodson, S. Jackson, and E. Smith be DISMISSED.”
“Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Physical Examination by Independent Physician. He seeks an Order for a physical examination by physicians not employed by the Georgia Department of Corrections or the State of Georgia. Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.”
“Upon review of these filings, it appears they are requests for discovery. Discovery is not filed with the Court, but rather more appropriately directed to counsel for the Defendants... To the extent these filings are motions, they are dismissed.”
“it is my RECOMMENDATION that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants H. Smith, F. Brown, Dupree, J. Brown, Mobley, Dasher, Johnson, Waynick, Simmons, and Madison (Doc. No. 44) be GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiffs claims for monetary damages against said Defendants in their official capacities should be dismissed. Plaintiffs claims against said Defendants in their individual capacities should remain pending.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment should be also be DENIED.”
“REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: dismissing claims against defts Cooper, Robbins, Highsmith, Crosby, Humphrey, Hodges and Batten in 1 Complaint filed by James Henry Leroy Martin.”
“ORDER denying 24 Motion for Reconsideration.”
“ORDER denying 29 Motion for an Order to Compel. L.R. 26.5 provides that Motions to Compel Discovery shall quote verbatim each interrogatory and any objection thereto. Plft has not complied with this requirement; therefore, the court has insufficient information to assess the validity of Plft's motion.”
“ORDER denying 36 Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel.”
“ORDER denying 43 Motion for Subpoena to Produce Evidence.”
“Based on the foregoing, it is my RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his complaint.”
“Based on the foregoing, it is my recommendation that all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Rebecca Lowman, Vickie Chesser, Ms. Ferra, Dr. Ferrell, Ryan Hodges, and Carl Humphrey be DISMISSED. Additionally, Plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant Randall Holden should also be DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Graham's directly-assigned civil docket in the Brunswick, Waycross, and Statesboro divisions was dominated by pro se prisoner civil-rights suits against Georgia state prison and county jail officials (excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and conditions of confinement), on which he issued reports and recommendations for the presiding district judge's review; a smaller number of matters, including at least one full civil case, proceeded on the parties' consent to his direct jurisdiction through final judgment.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Graham was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2022.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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.
A historical record
Judge Graham no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.