Mark T. Steele
How Judge Steele decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals, Steele will reverse and remand when an administrative law judge's rejection of a claimant's subjective complaints is conclusory -- reciting the evidence without explaining, factor by factor, how it is actually consistent or inconsistent with the alleged symptoms -- because that recitation-without-analysis defeats meaningful judicial review.
“The ALJ's findings are conclusory and fail to meet the requirements of SSR 16-3p, as they are not 'closely and affirmatively' linked to record evidence or 'clearly articulated' to allow for meaningful review by the Court.”
Where a consultative examiner documents a physical finding (like reduced range of motion) but never ties it to any specific functional limitation, Steele holds the administrative law judge has no further duty to translate that finding into a residual-functional-capacity restriction on his own.
“Dr. Konsure did not attribute any specific functional limitations to her findings. Thus, other than considering the evidence, the ALJ had no other duty.”
A statement from a treating or examining source that a claimant 'is not emotionally capable of employment' is treated as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical opinion requiring the usual supportability-and-consistency analysis -- Steele will not fault an ALJ for declining to weigh it.
“Under the regulations applicable here, statements by a medical source reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments and her prognoses are not considered 'medical opinions.'”
Steele will reverse and remand where an administrative law judge finds a medical opinion persuasive but silently omits one of its specific functional limitations from the residual functional capacity without explanation, especially where the omitted limitation could change which jobs the claimant is found able to perform.
“He provided no explanation for why he seemingly rejected the limitation to 'simple tasks of 1-2 steps,' ultimately including a limitation of 'performing simple tasks and making simple work-related decisions' in the RFC.”
Procedural preferences
Before imposing case-ending sanctions on a pro se litigant, Steele works through the standard prejudice, interference, culpability, prior-warning, and lesser-sanctions factors on the record, and will try monetary sanctions first -- but repeated, warned-of noncompliance with in-person hearing orders combined with abusive conduct toward opposing counsel and court staff will support dismissal with prejudice even against an unrepresented plaintiff.
“The Court finds that the factors outweigh this strong predisposition and dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate sanction in this case. Plaintiff has refused to cooperate with Defendant in discovery, ignored several court orders, refused to attend any in-person proceeding, and continually engaged in unprofessional behavior to Defendant's counsel and court staff.”
On an unopposed motion to compel where the movant shows good-faith efforts to resolve the dispute without court action, Steele grants the motion and moves immediately to ordering a fee application under the mandatory fee-shifting rule, then typically trims the requested amount rather than awarding it in full.
“As none of the statutory exceptions apply, the Court is required to award reasonable costs, including attorney fees, to Defendant.”
In a declaratory-judgment action over insurance coverage, Steele will resolve a clean, undisputed coverage question on summary judgment while declining to reach a related coverage question that depends on the outcome of a still-pending underlying suit, administratively closing the case rather than dismissing it outright.
“The Court finds Hudson's request for a declaratory judgment regarding the Endorsement's application to the November 24, 2019, accident to be premature and not yet ripe for review.”
When an administrative law judge concludes a Social Security claimant can return to a specific past occupation, Steele checks the official vocational description of that occupation against the claimant's own functional limitations rather than accepting a general assurance that the vocational expert's testimony was consistent with that description, and will remand where an unresolved conflict exists and no alternative jobs were identified.
“The Court finds there is an unresolved inconsistency between Plaintiff's RFC and her PRW. As such, the absence of any identification of alternative jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy by the ALJ requires reversal.”
Cautions
On summary judgment in a premises-liability case, Steele will let an 'open and obvious danger' defense go to the jury rather than deciding it as a matter of law whenever the plaintiff's own testimony creates a genuine factual dispute about whether signage or a fixture had a deceptively innocent appearance, even where the hazard itself was plainly visible.
“Although the door handle and sign were observable, reasonable minds could differ as to whether the combination of the handle and sign presented a 'deceptively innocent appearance' of safety.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
“OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark T Steele affirming the decision of the Commissioner.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Steele's enumerated docket includes a sustained run of consent-track Social Security disability appeals inherited from cases filed in 2022 (before his appointment) through his 2026 caseload, alongside insurance-coverage, personal-injury, and employment-discrimination matters the parties consented to have him resolve to final judgment. Seventeen Social Security appeals sampled across his tenure were decided by Steele himself under Section 636(c) consent, weighted heavily toward affirmances of the Commissioner's denial of benefits.
Put Judge Steele's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Steele actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Steele's own signed orders and cites them.