Nancy K. Johnson
How Judge Johnson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment she applies the federal Celotex burden-shift strictly: once the movant shows an absence of evidence, the non-movant must come forward with actual record evidence, not pleadings or argument. Objections that re-argue the motion without addressing her findings fail.
“If the movant carries its burden, the nonmovant may not rest on the allegations or denials in the pleading but must respond with evidence showing a genuine factual dispute.”
In Social Security appeals she will reverse and remand where the ALJ fails to cite the evidence supporting a step-three Listing determination -- an unsupported conclusion is not 'substantial evidence,' and she credits indigency as an explanation for gaps in treatment rather than inferring non-disability.
“Without the ALJ’s citation to evidence supporting her conclusion that Plaintiff does not meet Listing 1.05B, the court must conclude that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence.”
Procedural preferences
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion she accepts well-pled facts as true and will let even a thin claim proceed if it states the elements -- pleading sufficiency, not eventual proof, governs the motion.
“While the court agrees that Mr. Gros’s factual allegations are somewhat thin, Mr. Gros sufficiently alleges a breach of contract.”
Cautions
First Amendment retaliation framing matters: she applies Garcetti rigorously and will dismiss a public employee's Section 1983 speech-retaliation claim where the speech was made pursuant to job duties rather than as a citizen. A CFO's statements about his employer's finances are job-duty speech and unprotected.
“the court agrees with Defendant that Mr. Gros’s speech was made in the course of performing his job as the Hospital’s CFO because making statements about the Hospital’s finances is inherently part of a CFO’s job.”
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 = 6 |
Granted: 4Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 3 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 2 |
Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for continuance N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for relief N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“On June 22, 2017, Magistrate Judge Nancy K. Johnson filed a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) recommending that the court grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 7) ... On July 6, 2017, the court adopted the M&R in full and issued a final judgment in favor of defendants.”
“recommending that the court ... deny Watkins’s motion to grant relief (Dkt. 18) ... the court adopted the M&R in full”
“recommending that the court ... deny Watkins’s motion for continuance (Dkt. 15) ... the court adopted the M&R in full”
“Defendants Easterwood and Sheppard’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 68) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Isaac’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 96) is GRANTED and, because the claim against him is barred by the statute of limitations, it is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant Checker’s first amended motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 104) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendants Avis’s first amended motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 105) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants Easterwood and Sheppard’s objection and motion to strike plaintiff’s summary judgment evidence (Dkt. 77) is OVERRULED and DENIED.”
“the court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiffs’ surreply is DENIED.”
“the court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED.”
“the court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion be GRANTED and Defendant’s motion be DENIED and that the case be remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.”
“the court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion be GRANTED and Defendant’s motion be DENIED and that the case be remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.”