Jeremiah J. McCarthy
How Judge McCarthy rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McCarthy
Jeremiah J. McCarthy has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of New York since February 2007. He earned a law degree from Cornell Law School and practiced law in Buffalo before joining the bench.
Judge McCarthy's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge McCarthy, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Letter submissions are accepted by mail or email only, not fax.
“Judge McCarthy accepts letter submissions via mail or e-mail only, not by fax.”
Motions
Letter motions for adjournments or extensions are accepted when all parties consent; case-management deadline changes still require good cause.
“Judge McCarthy accepts letter motions seeking adjournments or extensions of time where the parties unanimously consent to that relief.”
Discovery
Discovery disputes should begin with a letter to chambers and opposing counsel no longer than four single-spaced pages.
“If discovery disputes arise, the parties shall briefly outline the dispute by letter (not to exceed four single-spaced pages) e-mailed to chambers and opposing counsel (or mailed/e-mailed to unrepresented parties).”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents (Amended General Order 167) ↗
- General Order 157: Disclosure of Members, Shareholders, Partners, and Leaders of Business Organization Parties ↗
- General Order 166: Identification Procedures in Courthouses ↗
- General Order 168: Dispositive Referrals of Social Security Appeals to United States Magistrate Judge ↗
How Judge McCarthy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In several Social Security remands, McCarthy has pushed back on ALJs who identify a gap in the medical record, most often missing mental-health treatment notes or a stale functional opinion predating a later diagnosis, but then rely on the resulting absence of evidence to discount the claimant's allegations, rather than filling the gap themselves. He has treated that pattern as legal error requiring remand even where the claimant was represented by counsel.
“It is a legal error for an ALJ to rely upon the lack of evidence in the record where the record is equally clear that evidence exists, but the ALJ failed to obtain it.”
When an ALJ rejects a nonexertional limitation (overhead reaching, sustained attention) that is supported by more than one medical source, McCarthy has required the ALJ's explanation to actually engage the specific clinical finding at issue: general observations like intact grip strength or an ability to lift an arm 'above shoulder level' were not enough to displace a specific range-of-motion limitation neither doctor's opinion was ever squarely reconciled against.
“ALJ Patane does not cite to any regulation, case, or medical opinion to support his assumption that plaintiff's ability to lift her arm above shoulder level, but not through the normal range of motion, demonstrated that no overhead reaching limitation was necessary or appropriate.”
Procedural preferences
In Giambattista v. Saul, McCarthy independently reviewed a stipulated EAJA fee award, checked the inflation-adjusted hourly rate and hours billed, and approved the agreed $6,316.98 amount.
“The fact that the parties have stipulated to an amount does not relieve this court of the obligation to determine whether that amount is reasonable.”
In Castile, McCarthy denied a defense fee request because the parties cited Rule 54 and a fee statute without explaining how either authorized an award.
“However, defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Rule 54 and 42 U.S.C. §1988, lacking any explanation as to how either provision justifies the award, is denied.”
Cautions
In Geoghegan v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., McCarthy partly granted a motion to compel: he ordered production of relevant reserve information but declined to order production of documents the insurer represented it did not possess.
“Since I conclude that information as to the reserves established by Progressive are sufficiently related to plaintiffs’ claims that Progressive failed to make timely payment of SUM benefits, that information (up to the date of commencement of this action) should be produced to plaintiffs.”
In one recent criminal complaint, McCarthy granted two unopposed requests to extend the Rule 48(b) dismissal deadline but denied a third when the defense offered no compelling reason. The episode shows that prior extensions do not make a further scheduling request automatic.
“The deadline has already been extended twice 12 14, and no compelling reason has been offered for a third extension. Therefore, the motion is denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [15] is denied and the Acting Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings [18] is granted.”
“The Stipulation [21] is approved as follows: the court awards plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $6316.98 payable to plaintiff's counsel...”
“For these reasons, the plaintiff's motion [14] is granted and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Commissioner's cross-motion [17] is denied.”
“The Stipulation [24] is approved as follows: the court awards plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $8,527.49 payable to plaintiff's counsel...”
“For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [18] is denied, and the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings [19] is granted.”
“For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [9] is granted to the extent that this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order, and is otherwise denied.”
“The Stipulation [17] is approved as follows: the court awards plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $6,500.00 and costs in the amount of $400.00 payable to plaintiff's counsel...”
“For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [16] is granted to the extent that this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order, and is otherwise denied.”
“The Stipulation [25] is approved as follows: the court awards plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $7,379.87 payable to plaintiff's counsel...”
“For these reasons, the Commissioner's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings [11] is granted and plaintiff's motion [10] is denied.”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [13] is granted to the extent it seeks vacatur and remand, the Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [14] is denied, and this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“The stipulation [21] is approved as follows: the court awards plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $5,333.23...”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- McCarthy's enumerated civil docket since 2016 is dominated by Social Security disability/SSI appeals under the district's 636(c) consent Social Security Plan, alongside a recurring smaller mix of employment-discrimination, personal-injury/insurance-coverage, FLSA wage-and-hour, and FOIA matters; on the criminal side he handles a high volume of the district's 'mj' initial-appearance and detention-hearing docket.
- A handful of his oldest enumerated cases (prisoner civil-rights suits filed 1998-2004) actually reflect an earlier, predecessor magistrate's docket that was later reassigned to him, rather than his own original work, and were excluded from this sample for that reason.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 17 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 Western District of New York, not for Judge McCarthy: 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 | 1,499 | 9.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 91 | 8.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,344 | 8.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 56 | 28.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,499 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,783 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,768 | 15.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,892 | 15.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,130 | 14.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,177 | 14.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,971 | 14.8 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 McCarthy with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McCarthy, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McCarthy's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace