Mary Milloy

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas magistrate Retired 2018 · served 1992–2018 Appointed by Judges of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas 7 signed orders read

Judge Milloy no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Milloy decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In Social Security review, she required further record development when the ALJ discounted consistent cognitive testing without substantial evidentiary support.

“the ALJ’s decision to dismiss those test results which suggest that Knox has a low cognitive ability is not supported by substantial evidence. For that reason, the record should have been further developed on this issue, as well.”

In employment cases, she required evidence that the employer's stated reason was pretextual rather than allowing a retaliation claim to rest on assertion alone.

“Because Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence to raise a fact issue on whether Defendants’ articulated reasons for her termination were mere pretext, her retaliation claim, based on her termination, should be dismissed.”

Procedural preferences

In insurance duty-to-defend disputes, Milloy applied the eight-corners rule to the factual origin of the alleged harm rather than the claimant's legal labels.

“the court must focus on the factual allegations that show the origin of the damages, rather than on the legal theories alleged”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Gemini Insurance v. S & J Diving, Inc.
number unavailable · 2006-07-18
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED, and that Defendants’ motion be DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Denied
Matthews v. City of Houston Fire Department
number unavailable · 2009-02-18
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“After a review of the motion and responses, the evidence provided, and the applicable law, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion be GRANTED.”

Knox v. Astrue
number unavailable · 2009-09-14
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
United States ex rel. Reagon v. East Texas Medical Center Regional Healthcare System
number unavailable · 2003-02-10
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“It is further RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion be GRANTED and that this action be DISMISSED because the evidence fails to support Reagan’s allegation that she is an original source of the information underlying her claims.”

Hall v. GE Plastic Pacific PTE Ltd.
number unavailable · 2002-01-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“On January 23, 2002, the magistrate judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation that first considered whether federal law should apply and then applied federal law concerning judicial estoppel and concluded that judicial estoppel is applicable and GE’s motion should be granted.”

Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB
number unavailable · 1996-07-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant ACAB) Granted

“On July 30, the magistrate judge issued a memorandum and recommendation that ACAB’s and Robbins’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction be granted, and that Appellants’ motion for remand be denied as moot.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant Robbins) Granted
Motions to remand (plaintiffs) Moot / procedural
Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB
number unavailable · 1996-07-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant Comptec) Granted

“The next day, she issued a memorandum and recommendation that Comptec’s and Compressors’ motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens be granted.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant Compressors) Granted

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The fixed 26-docket availability sample contains six Social Security appeals, five FLSA matters, four contract cases, three personal-injury or product-liability matters, two cable-broadcast cases, and one each in employment civil rights, bankruptcy, forfeiture, plus three uncoded matters. This availability-selected sample describes the reviewed docket vein, not Milloy's full 26-year caseload.

A historical record

Judge Milloy no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.