Michael J. Roemer
How Judge Roemer rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Roemer
Michael J. Roemer has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of New York since December 2015. A graduate of West Point and Cornell Law School, he previously served as the district court’s clerk of court.
Judge Roemer's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Roemer, 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
Judge Roemer accepts letter submissions by mail, hand delivery, or email.
“Judge Roemer accepts letter submissions via mail, hand delivery, or email.”
Motions
Unless the court has provided a date, motions should omit return dates; the court schedules argument when helpful.
“Unless previously provided with a date by the Court, motions shall not contain return dates.”
Discovery
Discovery disputes begin with a letter filed electronically as a discovery-motion event, after which the court may schedule an informal conference.
“If a discovery dispute arises, the parties shall initially advise the Court of the dispute via letter (with copy to opposing counsel).”
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 Roemer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Montes, Roemer remanded a child’s disability appeal because the ALJ had not obtained individual treatment notes from a mental-health provider. The missing notes could have affected the assessment of the child’s ADHD limitations.
“Montes argues that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the record by not obtaining E.M.H.'s individual treatment notes from the Monsignor Carr Institute, where E.M.H. received treatment for her ADHD from 2012 through 2015... The Court agrees.”
In Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections, Roemer upheld New York's independent-nominating deadline against an as-applied constitutional challenge. He found the burden reasonable and nondiscriminatory in light of the state's election interests, then granted summary judgment for the defendants.
“The record here demonstrates that New York has important state regulatory interests which are sufficient to justify the reasonable and nondiscriminatory burdens imposed by the filing deadline.”
In 51 Webster St., Roemer denied both sides’ motions to exclude experts before a bench trial. He concluded that challenges to the experts’ methods and factual bases could be addressed through cross-examination and weighed when he served as the factfinder.
“Defendant’s criticism of the anticipated testimony goes to its weight and not its admissibility.”
Procedural preferences
In Mansouri, after a Supreme Court decision concerning wire-fraud liability, Roemer requested supplemental briefs on its effect on the defendant’s pending motions before considering them.
“The Court requested further briefing... and the Court will then consider the motions submitted for report and recommendation/decision.”
Cautions
In Montes, Roemer found the Commissioner’s renewed merits arguments insufficient to justify her prior position and rejected the proposed special-circumstances bar to fees. He awarded $10,815.15 after applying the annual inflation-adjusted rates to the hours he found reasonable.
“Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified.”
In a disability appeal, an unexplained difference between limits on contact with coworkers and the public prevented meaningful review of the administrative law judge's residual functional capacity finding. The court remanded for further proceedings.
“Such error is not harmless as it prevents the Court from conducting a meaningful review and may affect the findings at step five of the sequential analysis.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the following reasons, Lansom's motion (Dkt. No. 12) is denied and the Commissioner's motion (Dkt. No. 21) is granted.”
“For the following reasons, Hamm's motion (Dkt. No. 10) is denied and the Commissioner's motion (Dkt. No. 11) is granted.”
“Montes' motion (Dkt. No. 14) is granted, the Commissioner's motion (Dkt. No. 15) is denied, and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order.”
“Montes' motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Wagner's motion (Dkt. No. 11) is denied and the Commissioner's motion (Dkt. No. 13) is granted.”
“Straughter's motion (Dkt. No. 15) is granted, the Commissioner's motion (Dkt. No. 18) is denied.”
“DECISION AND ORDER granting [Dkt. No.] 26 Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before 10/11/2017. Defendant shall file an answer to the amended complaint on or before 10/27/2017.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed. (Dkt. No. 66) The Clerk of the Court shall take all necessary steps to close the case.”
“For the following reasons, the Court denies both plaintiff's and defendant's motions to strike and exclude expert testimony.”
“Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 7) is granted, and defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 10) is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 6) is granted, and defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 7) is denied.”
“DECISION AND ORDER granting plaintiff's [Dkt. No.] 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying Commissioner's [Dkt. No.] 9 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This case is remanded for further administrative proceedings.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 257 days (N = 10).
- The sampled docket contains consent Social Security disability appeals from several filing-year cohorts through 2025, along with contract and environmental-property suits, an election-law challenge, and criminal matters referred for pretrial proceedings or plea recommendations.
- It also includes initial appearances and detention matters in Buffalo.
- This targeted sample should not be read as the full mix of the judge's cases.
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 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 Western District of New York, not for Judge Roemer: 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 Roemer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Roemer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Roemer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace