James E. Grimes Jr.
How Judge Jr. decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A subject-matter specialist on Social Security review (he was an SSA Administrative Law Judge 2016-2022). He applies deferential substantial-evidence review but takes the ALJ's own words at face value and holds the Commissioner to her step-five burden of proving a significant number of jobs the claimant can actually perform. In Myers he remanded because one cited DOT occupation required exposure to moving mechanical parts that the RFC forbade, and the ALJ misread the vocational expert's total-jobs estimate.
“the ALJ found that Myers cannot be exposed to moving machinery ... and the striping machine tender job requires exposure to moving mechanical parts. So Myers has shown that the ALJ's finding -- that Myers can perform this job -- is not supported by substantial evidence.”
He enforces the Earley v. Comm'r rule against res-judicata 'binding' of a prior RFC: where a new application covers a distinct time period, the ALJ errs by treating a prior ALJ's RFC as a mandatory starting point rather than a non-binding consideration. He refuses to let the Commissioner explain away an ALJ's express statement that he was 'bound' by the earlier finding.
“Under Earley, 'each application is entitled to review.' ... Yet the ALJ in this case announced from the start that under Drummond, he was 'bound' by the previous RFC determination. That was error.”
Procedural preferences
Sits as judge of record on 28 U.S.C. 636(c) consent (docket suffix -JEG) and enters final judgment himself; a Social Security case referred to him for an R&R can convert to a consent final once the parties consent under Rule 73. His R&Rs carry the standard 14-day objections notice and the warning that failure to object may forfeit the right to appeal the district court's order.
“Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within 14 days ... Failure to file objections within the specified time may forfeit the right to appeal the District Court's order.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Social security appeal N = 5 |
counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“[The parties] consented to my jurisdiction in this case. Doc. 12. Following review, and for the reasons stated below, I affirm the Commissioner's decision. ... Conclusion. For the reasons explained above, I affirm the Commissioner's decision. Dated: October 30, 2023 /s/ James E. Grimes Jr.”
“Following review, and for the reasons stated below, I recommend the District Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. ... Conclusion. For the reasons explained above, I recommend that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. Dated: October 10, 2023 /s/ James E. Grimes Jr.”
“This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes. (ECF #11) ... Magistrate Judge Grimes recommends that the Commissioner's final decision be affirmed. (ECF #11) No objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed.”
“Conclusion. For the reasons explained above, I recommend that the Court remand the Commissioner's decision. Dated: January 21, 2025 /s/ James E. Grimes Jr.”
“Conclusion. For the reasons explained above, I recommend that the District Court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Report and Recommendation. Dated: February 6, 2023 /s/ James E. Grimes Jr.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Qualitative, NOT a census. As a Cleveland Eastern-Division magistrate judge he handles (a) referred civil R&R matters -- Social Security 405(g) appeals overwhelmingly dominate his written merits work (the reasoning layer above), across many Article III judges (Nugent, Pearson, Knepp II, Adams, Boyko seen as adopters/referrers); (b) 636(c) consent civil cases (mainly SS appeals) where he enters final judgment himself (suffix -JEG); and (c) directly-assigned duty-magistrate criminal matters -- a high volume of criminal complaints and seizure/search warrants (1:25-mj-*, 1:26-mj-*) in 2025-2026.