Patricia A. Sullivan
How Judge Sullivan rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sullivan
Patricia A. Sullivan has served on the United States Magistrate Judge bench for the District of Rhode Island since October 2012 and is a recalled magistrate judge. She was the first woman appointed to that magistrate bench and previously practiced litigation in Providence. She graduated from Wellesley College and Georgetown University Law Center.
Judge Sullivan's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Sullivan'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 Sullivan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In screening a repeat pro se filer's complaint, the judge relied on the litigant's own prior filings and public records to test the credibility of new factual assertions, rather than accepting them at face value.
“A check of the same database in connection with this IFP motion reflects that Mr. Rosario still appears to own at least one property, permitting the inference that the response under penalty of perjury in his Application filed in this case that he owns no real estate may not be accurate.”
Procedural preferences
In a medical-record discovery dispute, the court permitted targeted review of records relevant to the plaintiff’s claimed symptoms while imposing confidentiality limits. It explained that a record-by-record relevance screening by the court would be unreliable in a medically complex case.
“the Court lacks the expertise to assess what is relevant to the medically complex claims and defenses in issue”
In a patent expert dispute, the court struck a declaration filed after expert discovery because the opponent had no chance to question the expert or offer rebuttal testimony.
“Kids2 has been deprived by the timing of this new Declaration of its right to cross-examine Mr. Mauro about what he did or to submit a rebuttal from Mr. Gordon.”
Cautions
In Silva v. Rhode Island, Sullivan recommended denying a detainee's summary judgment request because he submitted no supporting evidence. She also found that the sole remaining defendant lacked authority to arrange the requested transfer or prison oversight.
“Plaintiff asks for ‘immediate’ summary judgment but provides no evidence in support of his request; instead, he concedes that supporting evidence (which he claims he has) is ‘not enclosed.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“recommending that the State’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) be granted and that Fuentes’s Amended Habeas Corpus Petition (ECF No. 10) be denied and dismissed. Having reviewed the R&R and the relevant papers, and having heard no objections, the Court ACCEPTS the R&R and adopts its recommendations and reasoning.”
“The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Patricia A. Sullivan dated January 29, 2015 in the above-captioned matter is accepted pursuant to Title 28 United States Code § 636(b)(1). The Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner is GRANTED and the Defendant’s Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner is DENIED.”
“recommending that the Court grant the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 10) and remand the case for further consideration of the limitations caused by Plaintiff’s mental impairments. After having carefully reviewed the relevant papers and having heard no objections the Court ACCEPTS the R&R and ADOPTS the recommendations and reasoning set forth therein.”
“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.”
“I recommend that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 91) for summary judgment, mandatory injunction and change of venue be DENIED.”
“Based on the foregoing, I recommend that the Court summarily DENY Mr. Shepard’s emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 35), without prejudice to his right to pursue a claim based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
“Based on the foregoing, whether considered as a motion for reconsideration of the prior denial of a certificate of appealability or as a motion pursuant to § 1292(b), Mr. Shepard’s second motion requesting a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 54) is denied.”
“Based on the foregoing, I recommend that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 21) and order that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice.”
“Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 10) is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED.”
“Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 15) non-party DLT to produce the audio recording in issue in another format or otherwise to make the audio format more accessible is DENIED.”
“Based on these findings, CLF’s motion to compel SGS to perform additional searches (ECF No. 326) is denied.”
“for a protective order, ECF No. 261, is GRANTED, except for those document requests in ECF No. 256 to which Warwick is in the process of responding, and except to the extent that Defendants asked the Court to require”
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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.
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 Sullivan: 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 Sullivan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sullivan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sullivan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace