Michael James Davis
How Judge Davis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Construes a settlement (and any contract) as a whole to give effect to all of its terms and avoid rendering provisions meaningless. A party urging a reading of one clause that would nullify the rest of the agreement will lose — here, the insurer's reading of a single release paragraph could not override the agreement's repeated statements that the judgment survived against insurance proceeds.
“A reviewing court must construe a contract as a whole so as to harmonize all provisions, if possible, and to avoid a construction that would render one or more provisions meaningless. ... Adopting United National’s construction would render the majority of the provisions in this contract unnecessary and obsolete.”
Procedural preferences
Strictly enforces briefing deadlines and will rule a dispositive motion on the papers (and grant it on the merits) when a party fails to file a timely opposition, even after the court's staff prompts them. Missing the opposition deadline is treated as a serious, often case-ending, default.
“The Court’s staff contacted Plaintiff when he failed to meet that deadline, but Plaintiff nevertheless neglected to file an opposition or a motion to extend the relevant deadlines. ... the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the merits”
Cautions
Will not entertain new legal theories raised for the first time in a post-judgment Rule 60(b) motion or motion to reconsider; such relief is 'extraordinary' and reserved for exceptional circumstances, not a do-over. Repeated meritless post-judgment filings can draw a Local Rule 7.1(h) pre-filing restriction requiring the court's permission before any further motion.
“Rule 60(b) does not allow a defeated litigant a second chance to convince the court to rule in his or her favor by presenting new explanations, legal theories, or proof. ... The Court will not entertain novel legal theories at this late stage.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for relief from judgment N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 124] is DENIED.”
“Defendant Gunderson’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 109] is GRANTED and Defendant Davis-Frost is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from this action.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment and Order [Docket No. 39] and Motion to Extend Time [Docket No. 44] are DENIED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 97 days (N = 2).
From search_dockets(mnd, assigned_judge='Michael James Davis'). Recent assignments (2026) are overwhelmingly alien-detainee § 2241 habeas petitions plus criminal cases; 2015 shows numerous attorney-discipline 'In re' miscellaneous matters (chief-judge duty); older terminated civil cases include insurance-coverage, civil-rights, copyright (Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset), and securities disputes. Senior judge (since 2015) still actively assigned cases in 2026.