Cynthia Reed Eddy
How Judge Eddy rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Eddy no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania’s Pittsburgh Division. She retired in 2024, and Christopher B. Brown was appointed to the resulting vacancy.
How Judge Eddy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Dalie v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Eddy recommended granting the defendants’ motions because the prisoner had not completed the grievance appeal process for his restricted-housing claim.
“The exhaustion requirement is a 'bright-line rule' and 'it is beyond the power of this court - or any other - to excuse compliance with the exhaustion requirement, whether on the ground of futility, inadequacy, or any other basis.'”
In Pierchalski, Eddy concluded that removal was premature because no complaint had been filed in state court.
“removal is not proper until a complaint has been filed in state court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 3) filed by Petitioner, Derrick Gibson, be denied and that a certificate of appealability be denied.”
“it is recommended that the Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint filed by the DOC Defendants (ECF No. 53) and Defendant Elon Mwaura, PA-C (ECF No. 65) be granted as Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.”
“it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs' motion to remand be granted and this case be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.”
“The Corrections Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. All official capacity claims against Corrections Defendants ... are dismissed with prejudice. All claims against Corrections Defendants R. Hawkinberry, Eric Armel, Mark Capozza, Keri Moore, and Doris Varner are dismissed with prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to plead facts respecting personal involvement. The Motion to Dismiss is denied in all other respects.”
“it is respectfully recommended that Superintendent Gilmore and Administrator Vihlidal's motion for summary judgment be granted because Moser failed to exhaust his Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment claims against these Defendants.”
“it is respectfully recommended that summary judgment be granted in Dr. Jin's favor for Moser's deliberate indifference claim, as this claim is barred by the statute of limitations.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 56] is granted. Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient evidence adducing a First Amendment retaliation claim. Further, Plaintiff has failed to show that she is entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection clause, or that Defendants had no rational basis for treating her differently. As a consequence, the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendant Fayette County are also entitled to summary judgment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will, by separate Order of Court, GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in part, and DENY it in part, consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice against the remaining Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and it would be futile to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to file another amended complaint in this matter.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Her work is dominated by the district's large prisoner civil-rights and state/federal habeas caseload handled on referral, plus civil cases she presided over by consent of the parties and duty matters.
- In the final months before her 2024 retirement her assigned-judge docket shows duty-rotation work: search-warrant applications, fast screening dismissals of pro se in forma pauperis complaints (filed and closed within days), and an alien-detainee habeas petition.
- Examples of the nature-of-suit mix appear below.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Eddy was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2024.
| Motions pending more than six months | 1 |
| 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 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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.
A historical record
Judge Eddy no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.