Amanda M. Knapp
How Judge Knapp rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Knapp
Amanda M. Knapp has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Ohio since October 1, 2021. She earned a law degree from Harvard Law School in 2002. Before joining the court, she clerked for two federal district judges and served as a Social Security administrative law judge.
Judge Knapp's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Knapp's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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).
How Judge Knapp decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mears, the judge recommended remand because the disability analysis relied on findings largely irrelevant to fibromyalgia while omitting evidence relevant to that condition. The stated reasons must explain how the relevant medical evidence supports the result.
“Here, the ALJ’s analysis explicitly relies on evidence that is not relevant to an assessment of FM symptoms and limitations while omitting reference to evidence that is relevant.”
In Lamson, the judge upheld the residual-functional-capacity assessment because the agency explained why the medical opinions were unpersuasive. She concluded that an additional medical opinion was unnecessary before the agency exercised its responsibility to determine functional capacity.
“Here, the ALJ adequately explained his reasons for finding the state agency opinions ‘not persuasive,’ and was not obligated to obtain further opinion evidence before exercising his discretion to determine Mr. Lamson’s RFC.”
Procedural preferences
In Ford, the judge granted only the transcript requests tied to the habeas ground and declined the broader request because its relevance was not explained. A request for additional records should connect each requested portion to the issue the court must decide.
“Given Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that the complete state court transcript is relevant to the adjudication of this Petition, the remainder of the Motion to Compel is DENIED.”
In Nixon, Knapp declined to expand the habeas record to include jail-call audio because the state appellate court had summarized it and the petitioner did not dispute the accuracy of that account.
“he does not dispute the accuracy of the state court of appeals’s summaries of the jail calls.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court VACATES AND REMANDS the Commissioner’s decision for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”
“This matter is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings, pursuant to sentence four of Section 205 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“the final decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and REMANDED.”
“GRANTS the Motion as to Counts Two (quantum meruit) and Four (breach of contract), DENIES the Motion as to Count Five (account), and awards damages in the amount of $344,912.32.”
“For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY and/or DISMISS the Petition. The Court should DENY Ground One as not cognizable on federal habeas review and/or because it lacks merit; DENY Ground Two because it lacks merit; and DISMISS Grounds Three and Four as procedurally defaulted.”
On referral and with the parties' consent, the judge conducted the Rule 11 colloquy and recommended accepting the defendant's guilty plea to four counts. The district judge later adopted the recommendation. This plea proceeding did not resolve a contested motion.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed matters show three principal parts of Judge Knapp's work in the Akron-based Eastern Division: referred civil matters, especially Social Security appeals; civil cases decided with the parties' consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); and duty-magistrate criminal complaints and petty-offense matters.
- Judges Fleming, Nugent, and Boyko appear among the district judges who referred matters to her or reviewed her recommendations.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division, Akron), not for Judge Knapp: 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 | 2,048 | 7.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 394 | 3.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,035 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 607 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 18 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,048 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,008 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,137 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,330 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,432 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,788 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,158 | 9.9 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 Knapp with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Knapp, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Knapp's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace