Samantha Dowd Elliott
How Judge Elliott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Cancelmo website-tracking case, the judge read New Hampshire's Wiretap Act by its plain statutory text rather than importing a narrower construction from an out-of-state high court -- she distinguished a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that limited that state's wiretap law to person-to-person communications, because New Hampshire's statute defines 'telecommunication' more broadly as any transfer of information, without that limit.
“This court respectfully declines to apply Vita because the New Hampshire Wiretap Act is distinguishable... the New Hampshire Wiretap Act is not ambiguous because it protects “telecommunication[s],” which it defines as “the transfer of any form of information in whole or in part through the facilities of a communications common carrier.””
Procedural preferences
On exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies defenses (both Title VII/EEOC and PLRA-adjacent contexts), she closely compares what the plaintiff actually told the agency against what the federal complaint alleges, and will dismiss claims that were not fairly encompassed by the administrative filing even where related facts appear elsewhere in the record.
“Fisher’s administrative filings contain no allegations that would lead a reasonable investigation to uncover the retaliation claim that appears in her complaint.”
Cautions
She will not enforce a purported settlement on a paper record alone when the underlying conversation and check-cashing conduct are genuinely disputed -- litigants relying on ambiguous settlement communications and generic release language on a check stub should expect a fact-intensive denial rather than summary enforcement.
“There is no uncontroverted evidence in the record, other than the language on the check stub, that the check was intended to buy peace.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. no. 7) with respect to Count I without prejudice to Cancelmo’s right to amend his complaint and denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Count II.”
“the court grants Southern’s partial motion to dismiss Count III insofar as it alleges retaliation under the ADA (doc. no. 17).”
“The respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is denied as moot.”
“the respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is granted.”
“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 36) is granted, but its request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied.”
“Home Depot’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement (doc. no. 7) is denied.”
“For the reasons explained therein, defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no. 6) is denied without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 11) is granted. The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.”
“For the reasons explained therein, Novo Nordisk’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 10) is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court grants Webb’s motion for summary judgment on Vera’s retaliation claim in Count III to the extent that it is based on allegations that Wagner retaliated against her by shunning her. To the extent that Count III is premised on Vera’s termination, the court denies the motion for summary judgment. The court also denies summary judgment on all other remaining counts.”
“The court grants in part the plaintiff’s motion for declaratory judgment (Doc. No. 21) to the extent that it requests that the court declare that the lawsuit does not trigger coverage under the CGL Policy. The court denies without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion for declaratory judgment to the extent that it requests that the court declare that the lawsuit does not trigger coverage under the E&O Endorsement.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Katsigiannis’s motion to remand (doc no. 7) and grants the USPS’s motion to dismiss Parsons’s third-party complaint (doc. no. 10). Nevertheless, the court remands the case sua sponte.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Case-level sample shows a habeas/prisoner-petition-heavy docket typical of a New Hampshire district judge (28 U.S.C. 2254 and 2241 petitions, Section 1983 prisoner suits), alongside general civil matters (contract, personal injury, employment).
Put Judge Elliott's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Elliott actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Elliott's own signed orders and cites them.