Margaret J. Kravchuk
How Judge Kravchuk rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Kravchuk no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Kravchuk
Margaret J. Kravchuk served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Maine from January 2000 until her retirement in January 2014. She previously served as Penobscot County District Attorney, a Maine District Court judge, and a Maine Superior Court justice and chief justice. She graduated from Bethany College and the University of Maine School of Law.
How Judge Kravchuk 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. Michaud, Kravchuk recommended denying suppression after an evidentiary hearing. She found that dispatch details about a vehicle, together with the officer's observations, supplied reasonable suspicion for the stop.
“If I were a betting person, I would place the odds well beyond 2:1 probability that this truck was the truck I was looking to find.”
In a bench trial she weighed competing expert causation theories and was persuaded by the party whose theory better fit the physical sequence of damage, not simply which expert had more credentials.
“I am satisfied that the engine misalignment resulted from a breach of the implied warranty that the engine mounting system would be fit for its ordinary purpose of holding the engine in place to maintain engine alignment.”
Procedural preferences
In Alden v. Office Furniture Distributors, Kravchuk reminded counsel that a discovery motion required a good-faith conference and leave to file. She rejected reliance on informal advice from the clerk's office as a reason to bypass the local rule.
“Legal advice from the clerk's office does not override Local Rule 26(b) ... A motion such as this one should be brought to the attention of the magistrate judge and leave obtained to file it.”
She used informal telephone conferences to dispose of several pending pretrial motions at once in a consent civil case, rather than requiring full separate briefing on each.
“I held a telephone conference at Bangor, Maine, on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 ... I hereby enter the following orders.”
Cautions
In Lilly v. Maine Maritime Academy, Kravchuk recommended dismissing a self-represented plaintiff's case with prejudice after repeated defiance of discovery orders. She said she did not believe she had previously recommended such a sanction against an unrepresented litigant in fourteen years on the bench.
“In fourteen years as a magistrate judge in this court, after handling over one hundred cases involving unrepresented litigants, I do not believe I have ever recommended such a drastic sanction in a case involving a pro se litigant.”
In Bourgoin’s request for injunctive relief, Kravchuk recommended denial after finding that the complaint did not plead fraud with particularity and that claims for damages against federal agencies faced sovereign-immunity problems.
“I conclude that there is no likelihood of success on the fraud claim because the complaint does not even state a claim for fraud with sufficient particularity to survive a motion to dismiss.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the Court dismiss Trask's due process claim.”
“I recommend that the Court GRANT Zetts's motion to dismiss.”
“I recommend that the Court dismiss this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice.”
“Based upon the foregoing, I recommend that the Court GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) and DISMISS the amended complaint as moot.”
“Based upon the foregoing, I RECOMMEND that the court adopt these findings of fact and DENY the motion to suppress (Docket No. 7).”
“I recommend that the Court deny Clough 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief and summarily dismiss this motion pursuant to Rule Governing Section 2255 Proceedings 4.”
“It is my recommendation that the Court dismiss this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice to Trask's right to return to this Court with a federal habeas petition once his state court remedies have been exhausted.”
“I recommend that the Court deny the motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 4) and dismiss this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice.”
“I now deny the motion as to both items for the following reasons.”
“I RECOMMEND that the Court AFFIRM the Commissioner's final decision and enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner.”
“Moody has waived objection to this motion to dismiss ... and I now recommend that the Court GRANT the motion to dismiss.”
“Based upon the foregoing, I recommend that the court deny the request for injunctive relief.”
“I recommend that after reviewing the entire record ... that the court dismiss this case with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Kravchuk's civil docket mixed referred matters (where she issued a recommended decision to a district judge, evidenced in the published-opinion set above) with a smaller set of cases where the parties consented to her own final jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
- Section 636(c), including a product-liability wrongful-death jury trial and a contract/admiralty bench trial that she carried from filing through judgment.
- Her caseload also included a steady stream of prisoner civil-rights suits, Section 2254/2255 habeas matters, Social Security disability appeals on referral, and ordinary diversity tort and contract cases typical of the Bangor division.
A historical record
Judge Kravchuk 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.