Summer L. Speight
How Judge Speight rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Speight
Summer L. Speight has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Richmond Division of the Eastern District of Virginia since March 2023. Before joining the bench, she clerked for then-Magistrate Judge M. Hannah Lauck and practiced employment and labor law in Richmond.
Judge Speight's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Speight, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Standing Order: Local Civil Rule 7(E) ↗
- Revised Standing Order: Oral Argument in Social Security Appeals ↗
- Standing Order: Relevant Law in Social Security Appeals ↗
Key rules
Filing
In Social Security appeals, address relevant Fourth Circuit law on each issue before citing another circuit.
“for every issue raised in a Social Security appeal, all counsel must first address any relevant Fourth Circuit case law.”
Filing
The government attorney signing a Social Security brief must certify personal review of its facts and case law.
“the Assistant United States Attorney that signed the brief shall certify that they have personally reviewed the brief, including all of the facts and case law contained therein”
Motions
In civil consent cases before Judge Speight, a motion is not withdrawn merely because no hearing request was filed.
“No motion will be deemed withdrawn purely based on the absence of a motion requesting a hearing”
Motions
A party seeking oral argument in a Social Security appeal must file a separate supported motion by the date it files its summary-judgment motion.
“The motion requesting oral argument and accompanying memorandum in support shall be filed not later than the date on which the party requesting oral argument files a motion for summary judgment.”
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 Speight decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Reads the Fourth Circuit's Mascio v. Colvin rule narrowly: an ALJ must account for or explain MODERATE mental limitations in the RFC, but she declines to extend that requirement to MILD limitations, following this district's own precedent.
“Consistent with those prior decisions within the Eastern District of Virginia, the Court declines to extend Mascio's holding to mild or no limitations.”
In Bush v. O’Malley, Speight held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to find Dr. Hardy’s opinion less persuasive. She agreed the ALJ reasonably viewed the opinion as inconsistent with treatment notes showing improvement and migraine control with medication, and declined to reweigh the evidence.
“Based on this evidence, the ALJ reasonably found Dr. Hardy’s opinion internally inconsistent with treatment notes during the relevant period showing Plaintiff’s headaches had improved and were controlled with medication and treatment.”
In Allison v. Dudek, Speight affirmed the Commissioner because the ALJ’s supported alternative finding at step five made the alleged step-four errors harmless.
“The ALJ's conclusion at step five renders the errors alleged by Plaintiff at step four harmless.”
Procedural preferences
In Dautrich v. Dudek, Speight gave the pro se claimant a Roseboro notice but declined to consider medical evidence first offered on judicial review that postdated the ALJ’s decision.
“The Court declines to consider new medical evidence not previously presented to the SSA and that post-dates the decision under review.”
In Lyons v. Dudek, Speight recommended affirming the Commissioner’s disability decision and denying the claimant’s summary-judgment motion. District Judge Young adopted her recommendation in full after finding the claimant’s objections repeated his earlier arguments.
“The Court finds that Plaintiff's objections simply rehash Plaintiff's arguments from his motion for summary judgment ... the Magistrate Judge committed no error, and so the R&R will be adopted in full.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Remand (ECF Nos. 11, 12), GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Remand (ECF Nos. 11, 12), GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“Therefore, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13), GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11), GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is DENIED; and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED; and The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED; and The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) is DENIED; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED; The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED; The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“Therefore, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13), GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12), GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13), GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“Therefore, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13), GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“Therefore, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13), GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), and AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 469 days (N = 14).
Her Richmond-Division docket is presently dominated by Social Security appeals and criminal duty matters; a broader civil consent caseload (beyond Social Security) is only now developing as cases are reassigned to her, consistent with a magistrate appointed in March 2023.
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 |
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 Speight: 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 Speight with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Speight, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Speight's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace