Shirley Padmore Mensah
How Judge Mensah decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals she will recommend reverse-and-remand (sentence four) where the ALJ used a flawed methodology -- e.g., an 'averaging' technique across the functional domains inconsistent with 20 C.F.R. 416.927 and SSR 09-1p, or a failure to evaluate 'other source' (teacher) opinions under SSR 06-3p. Frame the ALJ's specific regulatory/SSR errors.
“the undersigned agrees with the parties that this case should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), so that the ALJ can reconsider the teacher questionnaires at issue and reevaluate Plaintiff's limitations in a manner that is consistent with the relevant rules and regulations.”
On motions to suppress she enforces Fourth Amendment standing first: a defendant must show a personal, legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or items searched before he can challenge a warrant (United States v. Russell, 8th Cir.). Stipulating away ownership/exclusive use is fatal, and a challenge to statements that depends on the search being illegal falls with the standing failure.
“Judge Mensah found that Defendant Jones lacks standing to challenge the search warrant because he failed to establish he personally had an expectation of privacy in the place searched.”
Procedural preferences
Her R&Rs are thorough and consistently adopted, including over objection. Objections that merely reargue the motion -- 'virtually identical' to the original memoranda, without identifying specific factual or legal error in the R&R -- do not survive de novo review. To preserve an issue, object with specificity to her findings, not by re-filing your brief.
“Defendant does not challenge these findings, rather, he reargues his motion. ... Her conclusions of law are based on sound analysis of the law as applied to the facts of this case.”
Issue-preservation before the magistrate: arguments not 'squarely' presented to her in the first instance are waived and cannot be raised for the first time in objections to her R&R. In Thomas she rejected a new confidential-source-reliability theory on that ground (Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim) -- make your whole argument in the motion before her, not in objections.
“When a magistrate judge is hearing a matter pursuant to his or her limited authority to make a recommended disposition, a claimant must present all his claims squarely to the magistrate judge, that is, the first adversarial forum, to preserve them for review. ... Defendant has waived this argument because he did not present it to the Magistrate Judge.”
On discovery sanctions she is remedy-proportionate: where a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert-disclosure violation is 'harmless and easily remedied,' she declines the harsh Rule 37(c)(1) remedy of exclusion and instead orders the offending party to cure (supplement the report, sit for a further deposition) and to pay the other side's reasonable fees caused by the violation. Ask for the proportionate cure, not just exclusion.
“For all of the above reasons, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Dr. Matthew Gornet (Doc. 25) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within twenty-one (21) days ... supplement her Rule 26 disclosures and provide a supplemental expert report from Dr. Gornet that fully complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(B).”
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.
| Motion to suppress N = 5 |
Denied: 5 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 3 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to strike expert N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Social security appeal N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to sever N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion other N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 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.
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner's Motion to Reverse and Remand (Doc. 26) be GRANTED and that this case be REVERSED and REMANDED for reconsideration and further proceedings consistent with the Commissioner's motion to reverse and remand.”
“In her report, Magistrate Judge Mensah recommends that the Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“After a hearing and consideration, Magistrate Judge Mensah recommends the Court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress [30] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jones' Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized and Statements Made During Execution of Search Warrant, [Doc. No. 107], is denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Jones' Motion to Severe, [Doc. No. 106], is denied without prejudice to refiling at trial if the Government intends to offer unredacted statements of a co-defendant which names or identifies Defendant Jones.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jones' Motion to Produce Identity of a Confidential Source, [Doc. No. 108], is denied as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count I based on qualified immunity is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count II is GRANTED. Count II is DISMISSED, without prejudice. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III is GRANTED. Count III is DISMISSED, with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Country Mutual's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. The Court will issue a separate judgment consistent with this Memorandum and Order.”
“For all of the above reasons, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Dr. Matthew Gornet (Doc. 25) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within twenty-one (21) days ... supplement her Rule 26 disclosures and provide a supplemental expert report from Dr. Gornet that fully complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(B).”
“On October 8, 2025, Judge Mensah filed her Report and Recommendation, Doc. [41], recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, Doc. [38], should be denied. ... The undersigned therefore adopts and sustains Judge Mensah's Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denies the Motion to Dismiss Indictment.”
“Defendant Samuel Thomas's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment or, in the Alternative, for a Bill of Particulars (Doc. 53) ... [is] DENIED.”
“Defendant Samuel Thomas's ... Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of the Indictment (Doc. 54) ... [is] DENIED.”
“Defendant Samuel Thomas's ... Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements (Doc. 55) [is] DENIED.”
“She entered a Report and Recommendation on November 7, 2018, recommending that defendant's Motion to Suppress electronic Surveillance Evidence and his Motion to Suppress Evidence be denied. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Suppress Electronic Surveillance Evidence and his Motion to Suppress Evidence [317, 318] are denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Suppress Electronic Surveillance Evidence and his Motion to Suppress Evidence [317, 318] are denied.”