Lajuana M. Counts
How Judge Counts decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Counts's criminal suppression and dismissal recommendations have been adopted in full by every district judge observed here (Ketchmark, Phillips, Wimes), including over the defendant's objection on de novo review -- a signal that her R&Rs are thorough and hold up. She holds evidentiary hearings on contested suppression motions before recommending (e.g. Haywood) rather than ruling on the papers alone.
“After an independent, de novo review of the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including a review of the applicable law and Defendant's objections, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations made by Magistrate Judge Lajuana M. Counts in full.”
Procedural preferences
When a defendant amends a suppression motion, Counts recommends denying the superseded original as moot and resolving the operative amended motion on the merits, rather than ruling on both -- keep the live motion clean and current before her.
“ORDERED Defendant's motion to suppress evidence (Doc. #58) is DENIED AS MOOT ... ORDERED Defendant's amended motion to suppress (Doc. #70) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”
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 = 3 |
Denied: 2Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss 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.
“ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lajuana M. Counts (Doc. 126) is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's objection (Doc. 129) is OVERRULED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment on Counts One and Two (Doc. 108) is DENIED.”
“Judge Counts's Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety, and Defendant's Motion to Suppress, (Doc. 23), is DENIED.”
“ORDERED Defendant's amended motion to suppress (Doc. #70) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”
“ORDERED Defendant's motion to suppress evidence (Doc. #58) is DENIED AS MOOT for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 236.5 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 1 days (N = 2).
Not systematically enumerated. Counts-assigned consent civil dockets observed: employment/Title VII (Patel v. McDonough, Johnson v. Woods Super Market, Harris v. Wal-Mart), personal injury / motor vehicle (Stone v. Wal-Mart, Bryant v. Wal-Mart, Miller v. Bonham), civil rights (Taylor v. Bolton), and alien-detainee habeas (Eshdavlatov v. Olson, pending). She also issues search warrants (4:22-sw-... matters). Her criminal footprint is as the 636(b) referral magistrate on suppression/dismissal/competency/plea matters before district judges (Ketchmark, Phillips, Wimes, Kays), captured in the reasoning layer.