Robert B. Jones, Jr.
How Judge Jones 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 he affirms where the claimant cannot show actual prejudice from a procedural ruling — e.g. an ALJ's denial of a hearing continuance is not reversible absent a proffer of evidence that might have changed the result.
“To establish prejudice, a claimant must demonstrate that he or she could and would have adduced evidence that might have altered the result. ... Here, Claimant points to no evidentiary gaps that resulted in unfairness or prejudice to Claimant.”
On the much-litigated post-Pereira challenge to illegal-reentry indictments, he holds the immigration court's jurisdiction is governed by the regulations (8 C.F.R. 1003.14/1003.15), not by the NTA time-and-place requirement of 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1) — so a defective NTA does not void the underlying removal order.
“The Court finds that 8 C.F.R. 1003.14 and 1003.15 -not 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1) and Pereira's interpretation of that statutory provision-control when and how subject matter jurisdiction vests in an immigration court.”
Procedural preferences
He is entitled to presume that a represented claimant's counsel presented the strongest case and structured the record; he will not act as substitute counsel.
“an ALJ has the right to presume that claimant's counsel presented claimant's strongest case for benefits.”
Handles a high volume of consent (636(c)) Social Security appeals and consents-by-the-Commissioner sentence-four remands, often resolved quickly once the remand motion is filed.
“ORDER granting 21 Motion to Remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 8/1/2022.”
Jones treats the district's good-faith meet-and-confer rule as a substantive prerequisite to discovery motions, not a technical formality. Counsel should confer directly, compare positions, and try to resolve the dispute before filing; a one-sided preservation letter sent months earlier did not suffice.
“This good faith communication requirement is not merely technical but promotes the orderly resolution of discovery disputes.”
Cautions
A request for default does not bypass service or pleading requirements. In Edge, Jones recommended denying default-related relief where service was incomplete and the complaint itself failed to state a viable claim.
“it is recommended that the motion to default be denied due to lack of service, the motion for the U.S. Marshals to serve Defendants be denied, and the motion to expedite be denied as moot.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“To establish prejudice, a claimant must demonstrate that he or she could and would have adduced evidence that might have altered the result. ... Here, Claimant points to no evidentiary gaps that resulted in unfairness or prejudice to Claimant.”
“the Claimants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-25] is DENIED, Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-27] is ALLOWED, and Defendants final decision is affirmed.”
“For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that Defendant's motion be denied. ... The Court finds that 8 C.F.R. 1003.14 and 1003.15 -not 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1) and Pereira's interpretation of that statutory provision-control when and how subject matter jurisdiction vests in an immigration court.”
“Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any evidence of spoliation beyond mere speculation and has failed to demonstrate prejudice, Plaintiff's motion to compel preservation, [DE-37], and motion to appoint a forensic expert, [DE-42], are denied.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to expedite, [DE-36], is denied as moot.”
“For the reasons stated above, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and Plaintiff's motion for the U.S. Marshals to serve several Defendants, motion for default judgment (construed as motion of default), and motion to expedite be DENIED AS MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 243 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 5 days (N = 1).
Put Judge Jones's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Jones actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Jones's own signed orders and cites them.