Craig M. Straw
How Judge Straw rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Straw
Craig M. Straw has served as a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania since October 2022. Before joining the bench, he worked for the City of Philadelphia Law Department and taught trial advocacy at Temple University.
Judge Straw's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Straw, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Email chambers a courtesy copy of motion papers; send a hard copy when exhibits exceed 20 pages.
“Judge Straw requires a courtesy copy of all motion papers to be sent directly to chambers via email. If exhibits are over 20 pages, a hard copy must be sent to chambers.”
Motions
Limit memoranda to 25 pages, double space them, and use 12-point Times New Roman.
“Memoranda must not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length (excluding table of contents and appendices), must be double spaced and must use 12-point Times New Roman font.”
Motions
Support each factual assertion with a record citation and provide pinpoint citations for law and record cites.
“Every assertion of fact in a memorandum must be supported by a citation to the record where that fact may be found. Both legal citations and citations to the record must include pinpoint cites.”
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 8, 2026).
- Standing Order on Procedure for Case Opening ↗
- Standing Order on Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Access and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Filing Procedures in Alien Detainee Cases ↗
- Second Amended Standing Order on Guilty Pleas and Sentencing ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Document Submission for Unrepresented Litigants ↗
- Standing Procedural Order for Cases Seeking Social Security Review ↗
- Superseding Standing Order on Procedural Matters in Pro Se Civil and Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Access to Civil and Criminal Transcripts ↗
How Judge Straw decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rachel S. v. O'Malley, Straw granted the claimant's request for review, vacated the benefits denial, and remanded for further consideration.
“For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's request for review (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. The final decision of the Commissioner to deny Plaintiff benefits is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”
Procedural preferences
In Shurelds v. Safeco Insurance, Straw granted dismissal of the statutory bad-faith count without prejudice and allowed 60 days to amend it; he dismissed the other two counts with prejudice.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is hereby GRANTED. Count I of Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has sixty (60) days to amend Count I ... limited to Plaintiff's § 8371 statutory bad faith claim. Count II and III of Plaintiff's complaint are dismissed with prejudice.”
Cautions
In Neafcy v. Commissioner of Social Security, Straw recommended denying the claimant’s request for review and entering judgment for the Commissioner; the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“Magistrate Judge Craig M. Straw has issued a report and recommendation ('R&R') that Plaintiff's request for review be denied, and judgment be entered for the Commissioner ... the R&R will be approved and adopted in its entirety ... 2. Plaintiff's Request for Relief [Doc. No. 12] is DENIED. 3. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant.”
In a child-injury suit, Judge Straw rejected negligence claims against home health companies after finding no duty to protect children who were not patients from a third party's abuse.
“On balance, the Althaus factors weigh against imposing a duty on Epic and Apex to protect non-patient children from abuse by non-employee third parties.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's request for review (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. The final decision of the Commissioner to deny Plaintiff benefits is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”
“the ALJ erred when she failed to consider Plaintiff's mental impairments at step two ... For these reasons, Plaintiff's request for review (Doc. 1) is GRANTED and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is hereby GRANTED. Count I of Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has sixty (60) days to amend Count I ... limited to Plaintiff's § 8371 statutory bad faith claim. Count II and III of Plaintiff's complaint are dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Report and Recommendation ('R&R') of United States Magistrate Judge Craig M. Straw, ECF No. 19; and in the absence of objections ... 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The final decision of the Commissioner denying benefits prior to April 1, 2022, is hereby VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the R&R.”
“the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Craig M. Straw (ECF No. 13), and no objections to the Report and Recommendation having been filed ... 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Craig M. Straw is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 3. No certificate of appealability shall issue.”
“Magistrate Judge Craig M. Straw has issued a report and recommendation ('R&R') that Plaintiff's request for review be denied, and judgment be entered for the Commissioner ... the R&R will be approved and adopted in its entirety ... 2. Plaintiff's Request for Relief [Doc. No. 12] is DENIED. 3. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant.”
“The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 57] is APPROVED and ADOPTED, as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion; 2. The Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] and all amendments thereto [Doc. No. 25] are DISMISSED as untimely;”
“The recommendation of the R&R (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED; and 3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.”
“The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED; ... nor demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the procedural aspects of this decision.”
“Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings regarding Dr. Gordon. Additionally, the Commissioner has met its burden of proof at step five. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for review (Doc. 1) is DENIED.”
“The ALJ sufficiently developed the record in this case, and Plaintiff’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for review (Doc. 8) is DENIED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.”
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 | 18 |
| 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 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Straw: 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 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,952 | 3.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,834 | 4.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 898 | 10 months |
| Closed during trial | 46 | 17.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,200 | 4.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,595 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,221 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 5,245 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,686 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,374 | 6 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 Straw with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Straw, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Straw's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace