Samuel Ray Cummings
How Judge Cummings decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
ERISA benefit-denial review: where the plan vests the administrator with discretionary authority, he reviews only for abuse of discretion (Firestone deference) -- the claimant must show the denial was arbitrary or capricious on the administrative record. Treating-physician opinions get no special deference, and a 1132(a)(3) equitable claim is unavailable when a 1132(a)(1)(B) money-benefits remedy exists.
“To survive summary judgment, Plaintiff must demonstrate that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether Defendants' denial of his claim was arbitrary or capricious. ... Because a suit for monetary damages under section 1132(a)(1)(B) is available to Plaintiff, he cannot assert a separate ERISA claim under section 1132(a)(3) seeking the same relief.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
EXCLUDED from stats (image-only PDF; grounded from GovInfo content-details catalog string, confidence medium). Cummings dismissed the action 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction' (per content-details, 'Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 7/21/2017'); the order also addressed a motion for leave to file. No clear contested party-motion outcome to classify -> recorded as a jurisdictional dismissal, excluded.
“Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and all claims asserted against Defendants are DISMISSED. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 3/28/2022)”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement, Doc. 25, should be DENIED and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 28, should be GRANTED.”
“Defendant John Cochran's Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against said Defendant are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
EXCLUDED from stats (order_type=procedural; rules on no party motion). R&R-adoption order (Cummings signer, reviewed for plain error, no objections). Adopts the MJ's recommendation to enter a limited scheduling order requiring defendant to file a qualified-immunity motion (12(c) or MSJ) by a set date, with discovery STAYED pending the QI ruling. Reasoning note: 'a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity should be determined at the earliest possible stage of the litigation' and a plaintiff 'must survive the ... qualified immunity defense[] without any discovery' (Carswell v. Camp, 37 F.4th 1062).
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Senior-judge docket. Sampled enumeration (2022-2023) is almost entirely 28 U.S.C. 2255 motions to vacate ('<name> v. United States') that terminate within 1-12 days -- consistent with administrative handling/transfer to the sentencing judge rather than contested adjudication. Contested civil matters (ERISA, prisoner 1983, insurance) are sparse and referred to magistrates (Toliver). His 2255 dockets carry no docket entries.