James P. Mazzone
How Judge Mazzone rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mazzone
James P. Mazzone has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Northern District of West Virginia since 2018, sitting in Wheeling. He previously served as a West Virginia circuit judge and practiced law in Wheeling. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees from West Virginia University.
Judge Mazzone's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Mazzone'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 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 Ross’s pro se Social Security appeal, Mazzone recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute after extending the claimant’s opening-brief deadline and issuing a show-cause order that drew no response.
“On April 30, 2024, 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 to the Court’s April 30, 2024, Order.”
In one civil-rights screening recommendation, the judge favored postponing claims that overlapped a pending criminal prosecution, recommending dismissal without prejudice or a stay rather than adjudicating issues that could affect the criminal case.
“addressing the substance of claims made in this case would necessarily implicate matters in the ongoing criminal proceedings, and as such the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss these claims without prejudice as to plaintiff’s right to raise them after the conclusion of his criminal case, or, in the alternative, that such claims be stayed until resolution of plaintiff’s criminal case.”
In a First Step Act time-credit case, the judge declined to excuse administrative exhaustion solely because the prisoner challenged an agency policy; the recommendation allowed the agency an opportunity to address the claim first.
“the fact that petitioner’s challenge directly challenges a BOP policy should not automatically circumvent the exhaustion requirement.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
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.
“Accordingly, and for all of the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this matter be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.”
“Accordingly, and for all of the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this matter be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.”
“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.”
“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.”
“the undersigned recommends that the petition [Doc. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“To the extent that petitioner’s letter of October 30, 2024 [Doc. 6] is construed as a MOTION for relief, the undersigned recommends that it be DENIED as MOOT.”
“the undersigned recommends that the petition [Doc. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“plaintiff’s claims against the West Virginia State Police and the State of West Virginia be DISMISSED with prejudice; and ... plaintiff’s claims against Eric McFarland be DISMISSED ... without prejudice as to plaintiff’s right to reassert those claims after the conclusion of Criminal ... Action Number 5:24-CR-46, or in the alternative, that such claims be stayed until the resolution of that case.”
“the undersigned recommends that the petition [Doc. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Doc. 18] be GRANTED and petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 13] be GRANTED and that the petition [Doc. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 20] be GRANTED and the petition [Doc. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
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.
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 | 1 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, not for Judge Mazzone: 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 | 300 | 10.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 9 | not reported |
| Closed before pretrial | 272 | 9.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 15 | 14.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 300 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 268 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 290 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 301 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 318 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 341 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 414 | 12.2 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 Mazzone with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mazzone, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mazzone's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace