David M. Cohen
How Judge Cohen rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Cohen no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Cohen
David M. Cohen served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Maine from October 1988 to April 2008. He graduated from Bowdoin College and Boston College Law School and clerked for First Circuit Judge Frank Coffin. Before joining the bench, he practiced law in Portland.
How Judge Cohen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He held the commissioner to a strict reading of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles job classifications: a limitation to "simple, repetitive tasks" is a mental-capacity limitation distinct from a job's skill level, and a vocational expert's testimony that conflicts with a job's classified reasoning-development or specific-vocational-preparation level triggers a duty to explain the conflict, not simply to defer to the expert.
“The commissioner's regulatory scheme addresses the skill levels of various jobs separately from a claimant's mental ability to perform only certain types of tasks... The administrative law judge evoked testimony from the vocational expert to the effect that all jobs included within the category of semiconductor assembler actually have an SVP 'at the low end' of 3... The administrative law judge provided no reasonable explanation for this obvious conflict with the DOT, nor did he ask the vocational expert to provide one. Under these circumstances, remand is required.”
He was not persuaded by conclusory challenges: a claimant's statement of errors that cites record evidence without explaining how it undermines the administrative law judge's specific findings, or that raises new legal authority for the first time at oral argument, does not carry the claimant's burden.
“The statement of errors does not identify any inconsistencies and, in the absence of developed argument, which counsel for the plaintiff declined to offer at oral argument, this issue cannot be considered further.”
Procedural preferences
In a long-running employment discrimination case in which the parties had consented to his jurisdiction through trial, he separated the issues that would actually be tried from broader discovery-era confidentiality disputes, using his own earlier summary-judgment ruling to narrow which exhibits remained relevant for a motion in limine.
“To provide the necessary context for resolution of this motion, on an item-by-item basis, it is important to note the limited nature of the issues remaining for trial in this case. My recommended decision on the defendant's motion for summary judgment, which was subsequently adopted by the court, Docket No. 65, identifies only two issues remaining for trial.”
Faced with an unauthenticated, illegible medical exhibit that counsel had promised but failed to clarify for the administrative law judge, he required a showing of good cause before supplementing the record on appeal, consistent with the statutory standard for new evidence, rather than accepting a post-hoc reconstruction offered for the first time in litigation.
“Clearly, no good cause has been shown for failure to present a legible copy of the blank form on a timely basis. Hence, I exclude it from the Record... the plaintiff, who at all relevant times was represented by counsel, defaulted in her Step Two burden of production by failing to provide either a legible copy of the Caccamo RFC or an authenticated blank copy of the RFC form to the administrative law judge despite the promise of her counsel to do so.”
Cautions
A pro se litigant's own procedural default, missing a discovery deadline and a deposition, then filing an untimely, unsigned motion to dismiss instead of responding to a show-cause order, led to a dismissal with prejudice; he treated a party's sustained non-compliance with case-management orders as itself sufficient grounds to end a case, not merely to sanction it.
“Linda M. Watson's failure to respond to the order to show cause, coupled with her failure to respond to discovery requests and to appear at her deposition... justifies dismissal of her claims with prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“As non-attorneys, they may not represent each other, their minor or adult children (including son AAW) or anyone else... The claims stated in the complaint on behalf of AAW, DBW and DLW are accordingly dismissed without prejudice... The claims of David B. Watson, Sr. are likewise dismissed with prejudice.”
“Even if his motion to dismiss is generously construed as a response, made one day late, to the order to show cause, it makes no causal showing at all. ... The fact that David B. Watson, Sr., having ignored the attempts of defense counsel to take his deposition, failed to respond to a request for production of documents and responded inadequately to interrogatories, finally ‘realized’ that he needs an attorney to pursue the claims asserted in the complaint on his behalf, does not excuse those failures.”
“The defendant, Cumberland County, moves for summary judgment on all claims asserted against it in this action alleging sexual harassment and constructive discharge. I recommend that the motion be granted in part and denied in part.”
“I deny the plaintiff's motion and grant the defendant's motion in part... The plaintiff's motion is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion in limine (Docket No. 75) is DENIED and the defendant's motion in limine (Docket No. 76) is GRANTED as to the following exhibits attached to that motion: A-D, F-G, K-L and P... My ruling is reserved as to Exhibits E, H, M and N.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the decision of the commissioner be VACATED and the case REMANDED to the commissioner for further proceedings.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the decision of the commissioner be AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the decision be VACATED and the case REMANDED on the additional basis that the administrative law judge failed to address the plaintiff's Step 3 argument, necessitating remand for consideration of that issue.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the commissioner's decision be VACATED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the decision of the commissioner be VACATED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the commissioner's decision be VACATED and the case remanded for further proceedings with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- His directly-assigned docket over two decades included the misdemeanor, civil, and miscellaneous matters typical of a full-time magistrate judge's own docket, forfeiture actions, IRS summons enforcement, third-party subpoena disputes, plus a substantial share of the district's civil caseload referred to him for pretrial management, discovery rulings, and reports and recommendations on dispositive motions.
- The single largest identifiable and text-retained category in the later years of his tenure is Social Security disability appeals, on which the district's judges relied on him for a report and recommendation on the claimant's statement of errors.
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 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
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 Cohen 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.