James P. Mazzone

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia magistrate 4 signed orders read

How Judge Mazzone decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In evaluating a Title VII disparate-impact claim, the judge treated the absence of a designated statistical expert as independently fatal, without needing to weigh the substance of the plaintiff's lay statistical arguments.

“Plaintiff has not designated an expert to explain and/or present these statistics and their import... Without such expert evidence and/or testimony, Plaintiff cannot support a prima facie case for disparate impact discrimination. Plaintiff's lack of an expert is therefore fatal to Plaintiff's case.”

In a Section 1983 suit, the judge distinguished carefully between a plaintiff's intentional-conduct and negligence theories arising from the same incident, rejecting a negligence claim built on facts that were, on their face, alleged as intentional acts.

“plaintiffs [cannot] prevail on a claim of simple negligence based on [a defendant's] intentional act... there is little doubt that plaintiff has clearly alleged intentional acts on the part of Tibbs.”

Procedural preferences

In pro se Social Security appeals, the judge recommends dismissal for failure to prosecute only after the claimant has been given a filing extension and then a formal show-cause opportunity, rather than dismissing at the first missed deadline.

“the Court entered an Order to Show Cause given Plaintiff's failure to file his opening brief... Plaintiff had fourteen days to respond. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file any response.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Callahan v. Kijakazi
1:22cv113 · 2023-07-21

Mazzone entered the underlying Report and Recommendation (and an amended R&R correcting docket numbers) recommending the court deny the claimant's motion for summary judgment and grant the Commissioner's, affirming a Social Security benefits denial; Chief Judge Kleeh adopted it without objection. This entry is included as an adoption-confirmed data point but is recorded on Kleeh's ruling list as the signed final order; excluded from this record's own motion count to avoid double-counting the same outcome twice.

Ross v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security
5:23cv356 · 2024-05-23
Social security review (plaintiff) Denied

“the undersigned FINDS that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case as required under applicable statutory and local rules. Accordingly, and for all of the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this matter be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.”

Gonzales v. Commissioner of Social Security
5:23-cv-00345 · 2024-05-23
Social security review (plaintiff) Denied

“The undersigned FINDS that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case as required under applicable statutory and local rules. Accordingly, and for all of the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this matter be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.”

Smallwood v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation
5:24-cv-00070-JPB-JPM · 2024-11-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that that: 1. Defendant Timothy Tibbs' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [Doc. 18] be GRANTED and the Court dismiss Counts Two, Five, and Six as to defendant Tibbs; and 2. all claims against defendant West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to serve.”

Patel v. McDonough
1:21cv131 · 2022-10-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion [81] for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to STRIKE this matter from the active docket of this Court and enter judgment in favor of Defendant.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Beyond his Social Security and prisoner Report-and-Recommendation caseload, Mazzone's own 636(c) consent-jurisdiction docket includes Title VII employment suits transferred in from other districts once all parties consent to his jurisdiction. The sample also shows the volume of non-dispositive case-management orders (in forma pauperis grants, extensions, page-limit rulings) he issues on referred Bivens and civil-rights cases before or alongside the dispositive recommendations.

Put Judge Mazzone's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Mazzone actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Mazzone's own signed orders and cites them.