Marianne B. Bowler
How Judge Bowler rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bowler
Marianne B. Bowler is a recalled United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Massachusetts. First appointed in May 1990, she later served as Chief Magistrate Judge. She earned degrees from Regis College and Suffolk University Law School and previously worked as a federal and state prosecutor.
Judge Bowler's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bowler, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Judicial Forum Survey ↗
- Order for Pretrial Memorandum (Jury Trial) ↗
- Order for Pretrial Memorandum (Bench Trial) ↗
Key rules
Conferences
A party with decision-making authority must attend mediation.
“Yes, a party with decision making authority must be present.”
Trial
Premark stipulated exhibits using numbers for the plaintiff and letters for the defendant.
“Yes, stipulated exhibits should be premarked - plaintiff/numbers and defendant/letters.”
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 Bowler decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Title VII retaliation: temporal proximity of an adverse action to a protected complaint or EEOC charge is sufficient at the pleading stage. Bowler credited a 2.5-month gap between complaint and adverse review and a 3-month gap between EEOC charge and non-promotion as a prima facie showing.
“Such temporal proximity creates a prima facie showing that PwC retaliated against plaintiff for engaging in protected activity. Accordingly, Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Count Two is inappropriate.”
ADA reasonable-accommodation MSJ: a manager's failure to follow a written disability-accommodation policy (here, contacting 'partner resources') is itself evidence of pretext sufficient to defeat MSJ, even where the employer articulates a legitimate scheduling reason for termination.
“Starbucks had a policy that required a store manager to 'contact partner resources if an employee needs an accommodation due to a disability.' (Docket Entry # 28-4, p. 85). Tam did not contact partner resources. Instead, she terminated Cairo's employment before providing him adequate time to obtain a note demonstrating that the restriction was temporary.”
Procedural preferences
Default-judgment motions must follow the Rule 55 two-step (clerk's entry of default first, then judgment); filing a Rule 12 motion is itself a 'responsive pleading or otherwise defending,' so default is premature while a Rule 12 motion is pending.
“Allied has not sought or obtained an entry of a default under Rule 55(a). Accordingly, it is premature to request a default judgment under Rule 55(b).”
In Allied Home Mortgage Capital v. Belli, she quashed a trustee summons without prejudice because it used an outdated $125 wage exemption and the creditor had not shown that the debtor was outside the employee category.
“The March 12, 2012 trustee summons contained a wage exemption notification but incorrectly stated the wage exemption as '$125.00,' which was the language used in a previous iteration of section 28. The wage exemption clause in the trustee summons, therefore, does not meet the statutory requirements of section 28 and Rule 4.2(b).”
Cautions
In a Social Security appeal, Bowler rejected the claimant's argument that the ALJ's finding of severe impairments required corresponding restrictions in the residual functional capacity. She concluded that the ALJ had considered the impairments and denied the claimant's motion to reverse.
“An ALJ's finding that an impairment is severe does not necessarily translate into functional restrictions in the RFC.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“this court RECOMMENDS19 that the motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry # 19) be DENIED.”
“this court RECOMMENDS7 that plaintiff's motion for an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner (Docket Entry # 16) be DENIED”
“that defendant's motion to affirm the Commissioner's decision (Docket Entry # 20) be ALLOWED.”
“Accordingly, the motion to amend (Docket Entry # 32) is ALLOWED.”
“This court RECOMMENDS14 that the motion to dismiss (Docket Entry # 4) be ALLOWED”
“and that the motion for default judgment (Docket Entry # 23) be DENIED.”
“the motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner (Docket Entry # 16) is DENIED”
“and the Commissioner's motion to affirm the decision of the Commissioner (Docket Entry # 23) is ALLOWED.”
“this court RECOMMENDS14 that the motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Docket Entry # 5) be ALLOWED as to individual defendants Lennon, McEneaney and Lau and DENIED as to PwC.”
“the Town’s motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry # 28) is ALLOWED on all counts.”
“Finglas and Smith’s motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry # 30) is ALLOWED on all counts.”
“the following chapter 151B claims remain in this action: race, national origin, ethnicity and sex disparate treatment discrimination claims and retaliation based on reporting sexual harassment.”
“Magistrate Judge Bowler’s Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 123) to deny the motion of defendant Robert Saquet and defendant City of Brockton to dismiss for failure to prosecute and to comply with Court Orders is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED and the motion to dismiss (Docket No. 112) is DENIED”
“the motion for reconsideration (Docket Entry # 26) is ALLOWED for counts I, II, and III and DENIED for counts IV to VIII.”
“recommend[s] that the court enter a final judgment with a reversal and a remand of the Commissioner’s final decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“defendant’s summary judgment motion (Docket Entry # 44) is ALLOWED on all claims in the complaint. As a result, a final judgment will enter in defendant’s favor.”
“the motion to dismiss (Docket Entry # 11) is ALLOWED. The complaint is dismissed as to Wells Fargo.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 273 days (N = 3).
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 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 14 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 2 |
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 U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, not for Judge Bowler: 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 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,095 | 3.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 881 | 7.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 676 | 17.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 30 | 34.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,439 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,756 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,222 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,582 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,391 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,438 | 23 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 Bowler with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bowler, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bowler's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace