Deborah Lynn Boardman

United States District Court for the District of Maryland district Appointed by Joseph R. Biden (Democratic) 16 signed orders read

How Judge Boardman decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In securities class actions she applies the PSLRA's heightened falsity and scienter pleading standard misstatement by misstatement, sustaining the adequately pleaded ones while dismissing the rest, and lets a Section 20(a) control-person claim proceed only to the extent the underlying Section 10(b) claim survives.

“For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.”

Procedural preferences

She resolves motions to dismiss claim by claim, dismissing some claims without prejudice while letting others survive, and identifies the proper defendant (dismissing an improperly named entity with prejudice while leaving individual defendants without prejudice).

“The Board's motion to dismiss Polk's complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Polk's First Amendment claims are dismissed without prejudice. Her Title VII claim survives.”

Cautions

She enforces the exhaustion requirement in prisoner and detainee civil-rights suits, dismissing claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and declining to reach an undeveloped qualified-immunity argument.

“the defendants' motion, construed as a motion to dismiss, is granted. Snyder's claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Lee v. Modlin
1:21-cv-01609 · 2022-12-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The motion to dismiss is granted, and Lee's complaint is dismissed.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“Lee's request for leave to amend is denied.”

Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Because the Court dismisses Lee's complaint, his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his request for counsel is denied as moot.”

Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools
8:24-cv-01487 · 2025-01-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The Board's motion to dismiss Polk's complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Polk's First Amendment claims are dismissed without prejudice. Her Title VII claim survives.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Polk is not entitled to a preliminary injunction on her Title VII claim. Her motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.”

Snyder v. Watts
1:22-cv-02307 · 2024-01-19
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the defendants' motion, construed as a motion to dismiss, is granted. Snyder's claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”

In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Securities Litigation
8:21-cv-00955-DLB · 2023-09-01
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.”

Bourne v. CVS
1:22-cv-00112-DLB · 2022-08-23
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“To the extent Mr. Bourne's opposition, ECF 18, and surreply, ECF 22, may be construed as motions to strike the defendants' motion to dismiss and opposition, the motions are denied because the filings are not pleadings”

Motion for sanctions (defendant) Denied

“the Court denies the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, or sanctions. Mr. Bourne is self-represented, and the defendants have not shown that he has 'abuse[d] the judicial process'”

Goodman v. Warden
1:21-cv-03294-DLB · 2025-09-24
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“the Court dismisses Goodman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denies a certificate of appealability.”

Doe v. Department of Veterans Affairs
8:25-cv-01523-DLB · 2025-05-14
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Doe's emergency motion for injunctive and structural relief, ECF 5, IS DENIED AS MOOT”

Motion to proceed pseudonym (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiff's motion to proceed under pseudonym, ECF 4, IS GRANTED”

Patel v. Albright
8:25-cv-00897-DLB · 2025-06-25

Suit transferred from the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) against six current or former Maryland state-court judges, a former U.S. District Judge, and a Fourth Circuit judge. The court dismissed it sua sponte without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, as barred by absolute judicial immunity under Stump v. Sparkman. The disposition did not resolve a party motion.

Peterson v. PrimeCare Medical, Inc.
1:24-cv-03582-DLB · 2026-03-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“PrimeCare’s motion to dismiss is granted.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Craig and Evitts’s dispositive motion, treated in part as a motion to dismiss and in part as a motion for summary judgment, is granted in part and denied in part.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Beddow, Reynolds, and White’s dispositive motion, treated in part as a motion to dismiss and in part as a motion for summary judgment, is granted in part and denied in part.”

Default judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The adversary process has not been halted here. The motion for default judgment is denied.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“The motion for leave to amend is denied as moot.”

Long v. Moultrie
1:25-cv-00175-DLB · 2026-03-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, construed as motions to dismiss, are granted. Long’s claims against all defendants are dismissed without prejudice.”

Dawodu v. MCM Products USA, Inc.
8:25-cv-03664-DLB · 2026-02-06
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“MCM’s motion to compel arbitration, ECF 13, is GRANTED;”

Parks v. Johnson
1:24-cv-02214-DLB · 2026-06-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The medical defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 162 days (N = 9).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 15 days (N = 1).

A filing-window sample of cases filed December 2023 shows a broad civil mix: consumer/FDCPA (Tolson v. Midland Credit), copyright (Strike 3 Holdings BitTorrent x3), immigration mandamus (Cham Nkuo v. Mayorkas), transit-employer (Bourne v. WMATA), pro se civil-rights (El-Bey, Lewis), plus high-profile 2025 constitutional/administrative challenges to federal executive action (Casa Inc. v. Trump). Sits in the Northern Division (Baltimore).

Put Judge Boardman's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Boardman actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Boardman's own signed orders and cites them.