Sam S. Sheldon
How Judge Sheldon rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Sheldon no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Sheldon
Sam S. Sheldon served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Texas from 2018 until January 2024. Before joining the bench, he led the Justice Department’s Health Care Fraud Unit and practiced at Quinn Emanuel. He joined Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in January 2024.
How Judge Sheldon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Diamond Services Corp. v. Curtin Maritime Corp., he found that the Coast Guard had made a rational connection between the facts and its determination about a vessel's U.S.-built status. He recommended upholding the agency's interpretation and denying the plaintiff's summary-judgment motions.
“Plaintiff has not shown that this was a plainly erroneous determination, much less an unreasonable determination. The agency has made a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.'”
Procedural preferences
In Curb Planet v. Wells Fargo, Sheldon found the bank’s UCC preemption argument against unjust enrichment underdeveloped because it did not explain how the cited provisions applied. He recommended denying dismissal of that claim while recommending dismissal of others.
“without further argument as to how either provision preempts a claim for unjust enrichment, the Court is unpersuaded. ... It is not the Court's task to develop this argument and thus, the Court need not address it further at this time.”
Cautions
In Curb Planet's bank dispute, Sheldon recommended dismissing the money-had-and-received claim because UCC Chapter 4 displaced it, while recommending that other adequately pleaded claims proceed.
“the common law cause of action for money had and received has been supplanted by Chapter 4 of the UCC. ... The Court, therefore, agrees with Defendant that the cause of action is not supplemental to the UCC and is instead displaced by it”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court RECOMMENDS: (1) Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment against Curtin, the Port, and the Federal Defendants (Dkt. No. 24, 40), be DENIED;”
“(2) Defendant Curtin's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) (Dkt. No. 13), be GRANTED;”
“(3) Defendant the Port's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) (Dkt. No. 14), be GRANTED;”
“(4) Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 41), be GRANTED.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be GRANTED and the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Court FURTHER RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Opposed Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's Opposed Motion to Supplement its Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint be DENIED.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... Plaintiff sufficiently states a claim for unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty (Claims II, IV, and VII). ... Plaintiff does not sufficiently state a claim for money had and received, negligence, gross negligence (Claims I, V, and VI).”
“Defendants' second Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' unlawful entry, false arrest, and excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment and retaliation claim under the First Amendment against Officer Defendants should survive. All other claims should be dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS the Motion for Final Summary Judgment be GRANTED as to any claims that arise under the first three insurance policies and DENIED as to any claims that arise under the fourth policy.”
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Sheldon no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.