Jane Marie Beckering

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan Appointed by Joe Biden (Democratic) 23 signed orders read

How Judge Beckering decides

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

Procedural preferences

Where a party files objections to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, she engages in genuine de novo review of the specific objections rather than a pro forma adoption -- in Hardrick she addressed each of the plaintiff's three objections individually before overruling them.

“In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.”

Signed rulings

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

Grayson v. Sisco
1:23-cv-644 · 2024-06-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment on the basis of exhaustion (ECF Nos. 25 & 28) are GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Ouellette and Hill's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28) is DENIED.”

Schrauben v. FBI
1:24-cv-33 · 2025-01-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”

Hardrick v. Unknown Nolani
2:20-cv-239 · 2023-01-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED.”

Benjamin Stanley v. City of Kalamazoo
1:24-cv-00145 · 2025-08-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant Bronson Physician John Doe) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bronson Physician John Doe's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED as to the federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, which are DISMISSED without prejudice.”

Motions to dismiss (Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety defendants) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants KDPS Officer John Doe 3 and KDPS Officer John Doe 4 are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to timely effect service.”

John J. Myerscough v. The United Methodist Church, et al.
2:22-cv-00226 · 2023-06-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant The United Methodist Church) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. Defendant The United Methodist Church is DISMISSED from this action because it is a religious denomination, not a legal entity.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted in part

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for leave to amend the complaint (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the motion is granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks to name the Michigan Conference of the United Methodist Church as a defendant. The motion is denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add the "Board of Trustees" and Bishop David Alan Bard as defendants in this action.”

Joseph Jordan v. Timothy Rife, et al.
2:23-cv-00109 · 2025-03-21
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant Rife) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Rife's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED.”

Aaron Hyde v. Trans Union, LLC, et al.
2:21-cv-00230 · 2022-09-21
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”

Mark Garth v. B. Hall, et al.
2:21-cv-00047 · 2022-09-02
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 20 & 28) are GRANTED IN PART by dismissing Defendants D. Hall, Golladay and B. Hall, and DENIED IN PART as to Defendants Smith and Bergeron.”

Albert Reginald Robinson v. Unknown Hitchingham, et al.
1:24-cv-00125 · 2025-09-10
Summary judgment (defendants Hitchingham and Silliman) Granted in part

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as described in the Report and Recommendation, and Defendant Silliman is TERMINATED from this case.”

Jason Lanelle Townsend v. Bryan Morrison
1:23-cv-01371 · 2025-01-16
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“The Court will enter an Order and Judgment denying the § 2254 petition as well as a certificate of appealability.”

Jordan Michael Crall v. State of Michigan, et al.
1:25-cv-00996 · 2025-09-30
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“The Court will enter an order and judgment granting Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of exhaustion, denying Petitioner's motions for "entry statement evidence exhibit request" (ECF Nos. 6 and 8), and denying a certificate of appealability.”

Jacob Dylan Plank v. Michelle LaJoye-Young
1:23-cv-00125 · 2023-04-25
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“The Court will enter a judgment dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of exhaustion and denying a certificate of appealability.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Her earliest assigned dockets (filed within weeks of her December 2021 commission) include a mix of Title VII/employment cases, prisoner Section 1983 and habeas matters referred to a magistrate judge, consumer/FDCPA suits, and diversity contract cases.

Put Judge Beckering's record to work

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

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