Joel C. Hoppe
How Judge Hoppe rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hoppe
Joel C. Hoppe serves as a United States magistrate judge for the Western District of Virginia. His chambers are in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Judge Hoppe's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hoppe'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 Hoppe decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sines v. Kessler, Hoppe limited a proposed attorney-fee award under Virginia Code § 8.01-42.1 to defendants named on that statutory claim and plaintiffs who had brought it.
“The Court may not award attorney's fees (as opposed to Rule 54 costs) against any Defendant not named as a party-defendant to Plaintiffs' § 8.01-42.1 claims in Count IV, or to any Plaintiff who did not bring a substantive claim under Virginia Code § 8.01-42.1(A).”
In Morton v. Kijakazi, Hoppe recommended remand because the administrative law judge left material conflicts in the medical evidence unresolved, preventing meaningful review of the residual-functional-capacity analysis.
“ALJ Kennedy’s failure to resolve those material conflicts means his RFC ‘analysis is incomplete and precludes meaningful review.’”
Procedural preferences
In Berry v. Town of Front Royal, Hoppe treated the defendant’s proportionality and confidentiality objections as abandoned when it did not argue them in its response to a motion to compel, and addressed its relevance objections.
“In its response, Defendant did not argue that the requested discovery was not proportional to the case or that it was protected from discovery by confidentiality laws. Accordingly, the Court considers those arguments to be abandoned and limits its analysis to Defendant's relevance objections.”
Cautions
In Sines v. Kessler, Hoppe found that the defendants had submitted no financial evidence to support their assertions that they could not pay the plaintiffs’ costs.
“No Defendant submitted financial documents, or any other evidence, to substantiate his self-serving, conclusory assertion that he 'cannot afford' or has 'no money' to pay Plaintiffs' costs.”
In Allhiser v. Social Security Administration, Hoppe accepted the administrative law judge’s reliance on the lack of treatment during the insured period and the absence of a link between later evidence and the claimant’s earlier condition.
“The ALJ reasonably determined that this absence of treatment, combined with the absence of any nexus between the post-DLI evidence and Albert’s pre-DLI state, undermined his allegations that his impairments were as severe as he alleged during the relevant period.”
In a prisoner due-process case, Hoppe found that 180 days without telephone privileges did not create a protected liberty interest. He also declined to appoint counsel where the claims were straightforward and the plaintiff had filed a clear complaint and response.
“Alston has failed to show that loss of phone privileges for 180 days implicates a protected liberty interest.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“I respectfully recommend that the presiding District Judge GRANT the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, and DISMISS the action without prejudice.”
“I recommend that default judgment be entered against Defendant APC, and that APC be ordered to pay West $5,000 in actual damages and $1,000 in statutory damages under the FDCPA. The motion should be denied with respect to Defendant Jackson, and he should be dismissed from the action without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“I also recommend that the presiding District Judge GRANT West's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, ECF No. 24, and that she be awarded $9,671.25 in attorney's fees and costs, to be paid by Defendant APC.”
“I respectfully recommend that the presiding District Judge GRANT IN PART Plaintiffs' post-trial Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs ... Specifically, Plaintiffs ... should be awarded $3.18 million in reasonable attorney's fees ... Plaintiffs should be awarded $468,216.15 in costs under Rule 54(d)(1)”
“After considering the administrative record, the parties' briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination and affirms the Commissioner's decision.”
“Having considered the administrative record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, I find that the Commissioner's final decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The decision will be reversed and the case remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Having considered the administrative record, the parties' briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, I find that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's final decision, and it is therefore affirmed.”
“Having considered the administrative record, the parties' briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, I find that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that remand for further administrative proceedings is necessary.”
“Having considered the administrative record, the parties' briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, I find that the Commissioner's final decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The decision will be reversed and the case remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“Having considered the administrative record, the parties' briefs and oral argument, and the applicable law, I affirm the Commissioner's final decision.”
“Having considered the administrative record, the parties' briefs and oral argument, and the applicable law, I find that the Commissioner's final decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The decision is reversed and the case remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; Dismissing case from the active docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 11/4/2015.”
“Having considered the administrative record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, I find that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision that Johnson is not disabled.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 6 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 9 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 32 | 1 |
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 Western District of Virginia, not for Judge Hoppe: 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 | 517 | 9.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 48 | 6.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 447 | 9.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 14 | 13.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 517 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 535 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 511 | 11 months |
| Sep 2022 | 610 | 14.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 655 | 11.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 588 | 10.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 618 | 11.3 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 Hoppe with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hoppe, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hoppe's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace