Mary S. McElroy
How Judge McElroy rules, drawn from 41 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McElroy
Mary Susan McElroy is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge McElroy received a commission on September 30, 2019.
Judge McElroy's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge McElroy'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 McElroy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an insurance-coverage dispute over COVID-19 losses, the judge followed the reasoning of state trial courts and the First Circuit that the mere presence of a virus does not physically alter property in a way that triggers 'direct physical loss or damage' coverage.
“This Court concludes that the Rhode Island Supreme Court would join the overwhelming weight of authority that the presence of a virus does not constitute 'direct physical loss or damage' to property under the Policy.”
In a challenge to a federal program termination, the court granted the challengers’ summary judgment motion and vacated the agency decision after finding an Administrative Procedure Act violation. It declined an additional permanent injunction because vacatur supplied the necessary relief.
“Defendants’ termination of the Solar for All program is declared unlawful under the APA and is ordered vacated.”
In a consumer purchase case, the court compelled arbitration after finding that the checkout design gave adequate notice of the terms and that placing the order showed assent.
“Chewy’s hybridwrap provides sufficient notice such that an objective user consented to the arbitration clause when placing their order on the checkout page.”
Procedural preferences
With a pro se litigant filing repeated piecemeal supplements to a complaint, the judge accepted the existing filings together as the operative pleading once, but required any further changes to come through a single, formal amended complaint going forward.
“No more 'supplements' or 'amendments' will be accepted except in conformance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, which requires a formal Motion to Amend, accompanied by a proposed Amended Complaint.”
In a commercial lease dispute, the court treated damage theories raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment as waived; the landlord also failed to establish non-speculative repair costs.
“A litigant may not raise a theory for the first time in opposition to a summary judgment motion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS Ms. Sebren's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to liability on Counts I and II but DENIES summary judgment on all issues related to damages.”
“The Court GRANTS summary judgment to the plaintiff on that portion of counterclaim I that alleges theft of the file and settlement of the case without his permission, and on counterclaims II through VI.”
“The Court DENIES summary judgment on that portion of counterclaim I in which Mr. Harrison seeks a portion of the contingency fee.”
“For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Great Northern’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16.)”
“Mr. Rotondo’s Motion for Default Judgment is premature. ... The Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 41) is DENIED.”
“The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 9) is DENIED, as the plaintiff has not shown at this point a likelihood of success on the merits.”
“the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.”
“the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 18) in full. The plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. The defendant’s Motion the Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED.”
“the Court GRANTED the States' Motion for TRO (ECF No. 4) on April 3, 2025”
“The defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 38, 48) are GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED and the Defendant's Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.”
“Mr. Whalen's Motions to Dismiss Defendants' Gleam and Bristol Yacht's Counterclaims ... are DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion (ECF No. 65) as to Counts II and III. Count I is also DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED that the Plaintiff States' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED”
“the Court GRANTED the Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO (ECF No. 2) on September 12, 2025”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 250 days (N = 25).
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 | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 16 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 21 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 25 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 22 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 16 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 15 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 17 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 16 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 14 |
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 District of Rhode Island, not for Judge McElroy: 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 | 484 | 8.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 214 | 9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 247 | 7.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 19 | 30.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 484 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 483 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 490 | 10 months |
| Sep 2022 | 498 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 464 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 525 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 569 | 9.2 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 McElroy with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McElroy, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McElroy's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace