Robert J. Krask
How Judge Krask rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Krask
Robert J. Krask has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Norfolk and Newport News Divisions of the Eastern District of Virginia since 2015. He handles referred civil and criminal matters, issues reports and recommendations, and presides over civil cases when the parties consent.
Judge Krask's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Krask'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 Krask decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Beverly v. Kijakazi, Krask found the administrative law judge had adequately explained why an older psychological opinion deserved less weight: it was dated and conflicted with more recent medical evidence and work records. He recommended denying the claimant’s summary judgment motion, and the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“it was of limited utility due to its dated nature and inconsistent”
In Arnold v. Huntington Ingalls Industries, he found that the self-represented plaintiff had not submitted sworn evidence in opposition to summary judgment. He recommended granting the employer's motion, and the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“did not submit an affidavit to oppose summary judgment”
Procedural preferences
In Arnold, Krask found discovery misconduct but imposed a documentary-evidence restriction rather than dismissing the case with prejudice, the sanction the employer had requested.
“The Court ORDERS that Ms. Arnold is SANCTIONED, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), by limiting her use of certain documentary evidence in support of her claims going forward.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The R & R recommends that COMTek's Motion should be denied as to Padilla-Ruiz's USERRA claim, but should be granted as to Plaintiffs' tort claim.”
“It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“it is hereby recommended that plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 31) be DENIED as to counts one and two and that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36) be GRANTED as to counts one and two.”
“The Court ADOPTS AND APPROVES IN FULL the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's thorough 21 Report and Recommendations, Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendant's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R, ECF No. 19, and ADOPTS AND APPROVES IN FULL the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned R&R, filed on April 26, 2023, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, ECF No. 12, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, ECF No. 15.”
“ORDER granting 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 18 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 21 Report and Recommendations.”
“The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's 26 Objection and ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's 25 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendant's 22 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and the decision of the Acting Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“The Court ADOPTS in full the findings and recommendations set for in the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge 13. The final decision of the Commissioner is VACATED the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.”
“FINAL ORDER: Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and the Commissioner's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Court hereby ADOPTS the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge as set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed on April 14, 2021, ECF No. 17. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, and AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“FINAL ORDER denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting the Commissioner's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 18 Report and Recommendations. The Court UPHOLDS the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“The Court does hereby ACCEPT the findings and recommendations set forth in the 17 United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that the Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; the Commissioner's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and this case is DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No overall nature-of-suit distribution or multi-case duration cohort is computed: the record mixes his consent civil docket with cases on which he was only designated and with the criminal-duty rotation.
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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, not for Judge Krask: 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 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,204 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,299 | 4.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 493 | 8.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 15 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,613 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,194 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,134 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,152 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,860 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,267 | 5.9 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 Krask with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Krask, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Krask's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace