Michael Patrick McCuskey
How Judge McCuskey decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Judicial review of an arbitration award under the FAA is extraordinarily deferential: the court will not vacate even an 'incorrect or even wacky' contract interpretation, only one where the arbitrator 'failed to interpret the contract at all.' He confirmed an award against a franchisor by identifying a plausible interpretive route (implied covenant of good faith; a third-party-beneficiary clause that is not always dispositive).
“this court cannot vacate an arbitrator's award where the contract interpretation is "incorrect or even wacky" but rather where the "arbitrators had failed to interpret the contract at all."”
PLRA administrative exhaustion is mandatory and enforced under a strict-compliance standard. A prisoner who used the wrong form (a Sick Call Slip, which only the medical department receives) rather than the required Inmate Grievance Form failed to exhaust, even alleging confusion -- especially where he had filed proper grievance forms before.
“under the Seventh Circuit's strict compliance approach to exhaustion, summary judgment for the Defendants is mandatory due to Plaintiff's failure to properly comply with JCDC's grievance procedures.”
Procedural preferences
At summary judgment he frames it as the litigant's 'put up or shut up' moment: the non-movant cannot rest on pleadings, allegations, or speculation and must come forward with definite, competent record evidence on each essential element.
“the nonmovant must present definite, competent evidence in rebuttal.”
He applies Local Rule 7.1(B)(1) literally: an unanswered motion is presumed unopposed and may be ruled on without further notice (he granted the unopposed class-representative compensation motion on that basis).
“if no response is filed the court will "presume there is no opposition and may rule on the motion without further notice to the parties."”
Cautions
Winning an injunction or a favorable legal ruling does not by itself make a plaintiff a 'prevailing party' for fees: the relief must materially alter the parties' legal relationship and directly benefit the plaintiff. A de minimis win (removing test results that were already locked away and no longer used) is not enough.
“this court concludes that Plaintiffs' success on their ADA claim was de minimis and insufficient to support prevailing party status.”
In an ADA reasonable-accommodation case he will grant the employer summary judgment where the undisputed facts show the restricted task (here, transporting wheelchair-bound nursing-home residents, ~60-65% of a beautician's time) was an essential function the plaintiff could not perform -- the plaintiff must be a 'qualified individual.'
“Mason Point's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 23) is GRANTED.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 3Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for attorney fees N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs (# 249) is DENIED.”
“William Kelsey's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Jimmy John's Franchise's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“William Kelsey's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Jimmy John's Franchise's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#29) is GRANTED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56. This case is terminated in its entirety.”
“Mason Point's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 23) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 143.5 days (N = 18).
Descriptive from search_dockets nature_of_suit/cause fields across the enumerated Jan-Feb 2011 cohort; not an exhaustive census. No FJC IDB baseline (disposition_mix) loaded this build (opportunistic idb_data not fetched on this CLOSED record to conserve calls; these dockets terminated 2011-2013 (pre-mid-2021) so a future deepen could populate disposition_mix from get_docket).