Katherine A. Robertson
How Judge Robertson rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Robertson no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Robertson
Katherine A. Robertson served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Massachusetts from January 6, 2015, until her retirement on January 7, 2026. She sat in Springfield and earned degrees from Princeton University and Western New England University School of Law.
How Judge Robertson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Gonzalez, Robertson denied pretrial detention despite a statutory presumption. She found especially persuasive that the defendant had complied with release conditions for seven months on comparable state charges and had consistently appeared in court.
“Most persuasive to the court is that fact that Defendant has been on pretrial release on state court charges for some seven months, facing a sentence similar to the sentence he faces in this court. He did not leave the jurisdiction, and he has consistently appeared as required”
Procedural preferences
She enforces Local Rule 56.1: when the non-movant fails to file a counter-statement controverting the movant's statement of undisputed material facts, those facts are deemed admitted and summary judgment follows. File a record-cited LR 56.1 counter-statement to create a triable dispute.
“When moving parties submit statements of undisputed material facts and the nonmovant fails to file a counter statement identifying evidence of factual disputes, the facts set forth by the moving parties are deemed admitted. Local Rule 56.1.”
In Chao v. Halko, she denied without prejudice a prisoner’s proposed amendment adding an access-to-courts claim because the underlying civil-rights case remained pending, making the new claim unripe, although she rejected the defendants’ stated objections.
“While none of Defendants' arguments are availing, the court nevertheless concludes that Plaintiff's proposed amendment is futile on another ground.”
Cautions
In Gillespie v. Cypher, Robertson recommended dismissing a Section 1983 suit challenging a state appellate fee award. She concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revisit the award and that judicial immunity also barred the claims against the judges.
“The federal district court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether the Justices of the MAP violated Plaintiff's due process rights when they awarded Ms. Staub attorney's fees and costs.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court GRANTS Defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. No. 58)”
“GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 46) as to Counts I, II, and III. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice as to Counts V through XI, which will be remanded to Superior Court”
“the court finds that there are conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of the community if Defendant is released pending trial.”
“Judge Robertson recommended the court grant the motions for summary judgment on the issue of Plaintiff's entitlement to equitable tolling filed by SPS and BSEA. ... the court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.”
“Judge Robertson recommended the court grant the motions for summary judgment on the issue of Plaintiff's entitlement to equitable tolling filed by SPS and BSEA.”
“the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. ... Defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 17, 31, 64, 66, and 74) are hereby GRANTED.”
28 U.S.C. 1915(e) in-forma-pauperis screening. Robertson denied the initial in-forma-pauperis motion, granted the renewed motion, and recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim and because the defendants (a state court and judge) are immune; the recommendation was adopted and the case dismissed without prejudice. It resolved no pending dispositive motion and is not counted toward motion statistics.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 6) is hereby DENIED without prejudice. The clerk is ordered to remand this case to the Hampden County Superior Court.”
“Accordingly, Defendants' motion to stay is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 69) is hereby ALLOWED as to the Monell claim, based upon failure to train (as to which there has been no objection), and DENIED as to the claim based upon failure to adequately supervise and discipline.”
“Defendants 11 motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. Furthermore, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file an amended complaint within 45 days of this order”
“the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 33.) Accordingly, Defendants motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 18) is hereby ALLOWED, and Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses (Dkt. No. 66) is DENIED. The clerk's office is directed to close the case.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED, and the Defendant's Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 179 days (N = 2).
Robertson's sampled work includes final decisions in consent civil cases, recommendations on referred dispositive matters, Social Security appeals, prisoner screening, and criminal-duty proceedings such as initial appearances and detention hearings. The examples describe the range of matters reviewed and are not a quantitative measure of her full caseload.
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 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 11 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 7 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 Robertson 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.