Roger W. Titus

United States District Court for the District of Maryland district Retired 2019 · served 2003–2019 Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 7 signed orders read

Judge Titus no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Titus decides

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

What persuades

In employment-discrimination cases under the McDonnell Douglas framework, grants a defendant's summary judgment where the plaintiff cannot show he met the employer's legitimate performance expectations and offers no evidence that the stated reason was pretext.

“the Court grants EDS's Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 24).”

Procedural preferences

Where a pro se plaintiff effects defective service but the defendant has actual notice, quashes service and allows time to re-serve rather than dismissing the case outright.

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of service of process will be denied”

Cautions

Applies statute-of-limitations and prima-facie screening rigorously, granting summary judgment on time-barred COBRA/FMLA claims.

“the Court will, by separate order, grant Defendants' Motion To Dismiss the Complaint or, In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 10)”

Applies res judicata to bar a successive suit arising from the same core of operative facts, treating a prior Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal as a merits judgment under Rule 41(b).

“the Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss on the basis of res judicata.”

Signed rulings

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

Ayres v. Bierman, Geesing & Ward, LLC
8:09-cv-02077 · 2010-02-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court will, by separate order, grant Defendants' Motion To Dismiss the Complaint or, In the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 10)”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“and deny Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 12).”

Johnson v. United States of America
1:10-cv-02591 · 2010-11-19
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The motion to dismiss the individual defendants shall be granted.”

Taylor v. United States of America
8:11-cv-01748 · 2011-07-14
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be denied without prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.”

Sare v. Electronic Data Systems, LLC
8:08-cv-01567 · 2009-10-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court grants EDS's Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 24).”

Fitzpatrick v. WMATA
8:13-cv-01085 · 2014-08-26
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED, that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED”

Gray v. Allied Waste Services of Washington
8:11-cv-01612 · 2012-07-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of service of process will be denied”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted will be denied as moot”

Corbin v. Lynch
8:16-cv-01495 · 2017-03-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss on the basis of res judicata.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Corbin's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) will be denied because, as discussed above, the Defendants have shown that Corbin is not entitled to relief.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 228 days (N = 10).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 250 days (N = 4).

A sample of ten cases filed in spring 2013 includes foreclosure, insurance, tax, bankruptcy, employment, products-liability, personal-injury, and self-represented prisoner matters. The reviewed cases ranged from prisoner petitions screened within days to complex civil litigation lasting several years.

A historical record

Judge Titus no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.