Nancy J. Koppe
How Judge Koppe rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Koppe
Nancy J. Koppe joined the United States District Court for the District of Nevada as a magistrate judge in 2013. She previously served as an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia and earned her law degree from Cornell Law School.
How Judge Koppe decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In V5 Technologies v. Switch Ltd., she approved Peter D’Agostino’s withdrawal as counsel after the motion represented that the client had notice, did not object, and the withdrawal would cause no scheduling delay.
“ORDER granting 340 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Peter D'Agostino from the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/8/2020.”
In Tony H. v. Colvin, she held that the claimant waived his challenge to the ALJ’s treatment of his testimony because his brief mischaracterized the ALJ’s decision and did not address the reasons the ALJ gave.
“Having provided no argument regarding the actual reasons the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s testimony (i.e., effectiveness of treatment, lack of treatment, and inconsistency with the record), Plaintiff has waived the issue on appeal.”
Cautions
In MacEachern v. Kijakazi, she denied an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and gave the plaintiff until October 7, 2021, to submit a complete application or pay the filing fee.
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice.”
In V5 Technologies v. Switch Ltd., she denied a motion to strike exhibit and reply material in the antitrust action.
“ORDER denying 176 Motion to Strike; Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/17/2020.”
Warns that Social Security appeals which ignore the ALJ's actual reasoning may trigger Rule 11 consequences rather than further warnings.
“This case marks the end of the warnings that will be provided for these Rule 11 issues.”
In the reviewed Phillips matter, she denied electronic-filing permission without prejudice after the movant did not explain prior orders revoking that privilege.
“given the previous revocation orders, the Court DENIES”
In a consent Social Security appeal, Koppe sustained an ALJ’s rejection of a consultative examiner’s restrictive opinion where the examiner lacked the medical record and the opinion conflicted with imaging and other opinions. The claimant’s opening brief did not obtain remand.
“The ALJ did not err by discounting Dr. Mai’s opinion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER denying 176 Motion to Strike; Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/17/2020.”
“ORDER granting 340 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Peter D'Agostino from the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/8/2020.”
“the Court DENIES 1 Plaintiffs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice. IT IF FURTHER ORDERED that no later than 10/7/2021, Plaintiff must either file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/8/2021.”
“ORDER granting 7 Motion to Extend Time to provide paper copies of the certified administrative record, The paper copies are to be filed within 60 days of the filing of the Answer and the eCAR. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/18/2021.”
“ORDER granting 24 Motion to Extend Time Re: 23 Motion to Remand to Agency. Responses due by 4/22/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/22/2022.”
“ORDER Granting 15 Stipulation to Voluntary Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and to Entry of Judgment for Plaintiff. ... that this action be remanded for further administrative action pursuant to the Social Security Act 205(g), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), sentence four.”
“The decision below is AFFIRMED. The Clerk’s Office is instructed to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT accordingly and to CLOSE this case.”
“Court DENIES 10 without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to be permitted to file electronically.”
“Court DENIES 12 without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, Docket No. 13.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Docket No. 7, 12 is DENIED as moot.”
“Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as moot. 24 Docket No. 25.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed docket is dominated by consent and referred Social Security appeals, which often end through stipulated sentence-four remands rather than contested merits rulings.
- It also includes criminal magistrate matters such as search-warrant applications and complaints, along with discovery management in civil cases assigned to district judges.
- The reported Social Security case durations are calculated from filing and termination dates.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Nevada, not for Judge Koppe: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 2,100 | 8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 290 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,769 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 28 | 8 months |
| Closed during trial | 13 | 62 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,100 | 8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,177 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,000 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,030 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,291 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,392 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,679 | 11.5 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Koppe with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Koppe, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Koppe's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace