Maarten Vermaat
How Judge Vermaat rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Vermaat
Maarten Vermaat became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Michigan in March 2019. A graduate of the United States Naval Academy and Yale Law School, he served in the Marine Corps and later worked as an assistant United States attorney.
Judge Vermaat's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Vermaat's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Vermaat decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jackson v. Coronado, Vermaat recommended denying exhaustion-based summary judgment because the prisoner’s sworn account of threats raised a factual dispute over whether the grievance process had been available.
“Plaintiff's affidavit in support of his civil complaint sets forth facts that are sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were actually available to him.”
In Margaret W.’s Social Security appeal, Vermaat recommended remand because the ALJ had not analyzed whether she met vision Listing 2.03A during a period without substantial gainful activity or addressed Dr. Gray’s related opinion.
“First, the ALJ failed to address whether Plaintiff met Listing 2.03A during the period when she was not engaging in SGA. The decision lacks any analysis addressing this issue. ... Finally, the ALJ failed to address Dr. Gray’s opinion that Plaintiff met the Listing as of January 1, 2021.”
In Willis, Vermaat recommended allowing an Eighth Amendment bottom-bunk claim against two defendants to proceed because the record showed a genuine factual dispute. The district judge later adopted the recommendation.
“a genuine issue of material fact exists on the Eighth Amendment claim involving bottom bunk placement against Defendants Brennan and Cobb.”
Procedural preferences
In O’Neal v. Johnson, Vermaat denied a motion to compel discovery as untimely because it was filed after the court’s discovery cutoff.
“To the extent that ECF No. 28 is a motion for an order compelling discovery, the Court denies the motion as untimely.”
In Ward's Social Security appeal, Vermaat recommended remand because the ALJ had not fully developed the record about the unrepresented claimant's court-ordered mental-health treatment and medication compliance.
“The development of the record was especially crucial in this case because of the fact that Ward was under court petition for mental health treatment at the time of the hearing.”
Cautions
In Anderson v. Huss, Vermaat recommended dismissing one plaintiff as a discovery sanction after he refused to sign a medical-records release despite a court order compelling him to do so.
“Anderson's actions display 'an intent to thwart judicial proceedings [and] a reckless disregard for the effect of [his] conduct on those proceedings.'”
In Mitchell v. Schroeder, Vermaat construed four overlapping transfer motions as requests for injunctive relief and recommended denying them because the plaintiff had not established grounds for that relief.
“The Court construes Plaintiff's motions as requests for injunctive relief.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is recommended that the Court grant Defendant Nusraty's motion to dismiss and dismiss him from this case.”
“The undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court grant Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Anderson from this case.”
“the Court will grant that motion to the extent that it will issue a revised order granting in forma pauperis status and omitting the directive that the initial partial filing fee be paid within twenty-eight (28) days.”
“the undersigned respectfully recommends that this Court deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment due to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Tippins's motions.”
“the undersigned respectfully recommends that Tippins's Rule 56(d) motion be denied.”
“Tippins's motion should be denied for several reasons.”
“It is respectfully recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment.”
“it is recommended that the Court deny Adams's request for a TRO.”
“it is recommended that the Court deny Mitchell's motions (ECF Nos. 33, 35, 37, and 39) for orders and/or an injunction to transfer him to different prison.”
“it is respectfully recommended that Court reverse the ALJ's decision and remand this matter to the Commissioner for consideration because substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision.”
“the undersigned recommends that the Court affirm the ALJ's decision.”
A prisoner grievance-interference suit against the Michigan Department of Corrections, decided directly by Vermaat under the parties' consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. He dismissed the complaint at preliminary screening on Eleventh Amendment immunity and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds.
“it is recommended that the Court deny as moot Plaintiff's motions ... and for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- His directly assigned docket is dominated by prisoner Section 1983 cases and state habeas petitions proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) consent, plus a smaller Social Security appeal docket.
- Most reviewed terminated prisoner cases ended in a PLRA screening dismissal within weeks to a few months of filing, with no party motion practice; his written recommendations and consent rulings reflect a much larger prisoner civil-rights referral workload.
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 | 3 | 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 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 2 |
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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not for Judge Vermaat: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 1,042 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 107 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 714 | 6.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 217 | 14.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,042 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 906 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 847 | 6.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,033 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,081 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 844 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 893 | 7.8 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Vermaat with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Vermaat, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Vermaat's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace