Michael John Aloi
How Judge Aloi rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Aloi
Michael John Aloi serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia in Clarksburg and Elkins. He previously practiced law in Fairmont, worked extensively as a civil mediator, and served as a West Virginia circuit judge. He earned degrees from West Virginia Wesleyan College and West Virginia University College of Law.
Judge Aloi's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Aloi'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 Aloi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In screening a repeat pro se filer's attempt to remove pending state criminal cases and sue local officials, the judge treated the plaintiff's own history of nearly identical, previously-rejected filings in other federal districts as directly relevant to assessing the current filing's merit, rather than evaluating it in isolation.
“Strasburg v. Maryland, No. 8:20-cv-3335-PWG (D. Md. Nov. 23, 2020) (denying removal motion of state court action... and dismissing complaint)... Kentucky v. Strasburg... Virginia v. Strasburg... Strasburg v. Wilson, No. 1:22-cv-1570-SAG (D. Md. August 15, 2022) (denying motion to remove state criminal matter to federal court, remanding action to state court, and dismissing complaint).”
In Boggs's disability appeal, Aloi's recommendation found that the claimant's different reading of the medical evidence did not establish an error in the ALJ's decision; the district judge quoted that finding when adopting the recommendation.
“Plaintiff’s differences with the ALJ are about how Plaintiff could weigh the evidence differently from the ALJ, which is insufficient to disturb the ALJ’s ruling.”
In Jarrell's civil-rights suit against his former attorney, Aloi recommended dismissal because the complaint did not allege that the private attorney acted under color of state law.
“However, in no fashion does Plaintiff allege how Defendant was a state actor or acted under color of law.”
Procedural preferences
In a mixed federal habeas petition presenting both exhausted and unexhausted claims, the judge preferred staying the case on the court's inactive docket with periodic status reports over an outright dismissal, preserving the petitioner's ability to exhaust state remedies without risking a later limitations bar.
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 32] be DENIED; Petitioner's unopposed construed motion to stay [ECF No. 37] be GRANTED; that the petition be construed as a mixed petition; and that the Clerk place this matter on the inactive docket of the Court pending resolution of Petitioner's claims to be raised in state court.”
Before recommending dismissal of unserved defendants in a pro se prisoner suit, the judge gave the plaintiff multiple extensions to identify unnamed Doe defendants and recommended dismissal only after more than a year of inaction.
“Plaintiff was originally notified by Order of this Court, almost three and a half months after filing his complaint, that he had an additional thirty days in which to identify these 'John/Jane Doe' defendants; later, he was granted a further thirty days. Nonetheless, he failed to do so... It has been nearly fourteen months since plaintiff filed his complaint.”
Cautions
In a Social Security case, the district judge declined to adopt Aloi’s recommendation in full and reached a different disposition after reviewing the objections.
“this Court declines to adopt and affirm the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Remand is GRANTED [ECF No. 10] ... and the claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... This action is REMANDED to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”
“the R&R is ADOPTED IN PART [ECF No. 33], to the extent set forth above, and the motions to dismiss are GRANTED [ECF Nos. 10, 18]. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the Court's active docket.”
“the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 12]. Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED [ECF No. 5]... This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the Court's active docket.”
“Accordingly, for the reasons herein stated, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 11] be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] be DISMISSED with prejudice, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 23] be DENIED, and that the matter struck from this Court’s docket.”
“Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Damages [ECF No. 1] is DENIED with prejudice.”
“The R&R on Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment is ADOPTED [ECF No. 206]... Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment is GRANTED [ECF No. 134]; Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Counts Two and Three; The deed for the Subject Property shall be SET ASIDE.”
“the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] is hereby GRANTED, and the Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (Dkt. No. 87), GRANTS the DOE's motion to dismiss for the reasons stated in the R&R, and DISMISSES the DOE without prejudice.”
“it is the undersigned's recommendation that the WVDOC Defendants Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 48] and that Defendant Scott's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 55] be GRANTED, and that these Defendants be DISMISSED with prejudice from this action for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(ii).”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 32] be DENIED; Petitioner's unopposed construed motion to stay [ECF No. 37] be GRANTED; that the petition be construed as a mixed petition; and that the Clerk place this matter on the inactive docket of the Court pending resolution of Petitioner's claims to be raised in state court.”
“the Court OVERRULES Parrish's objections (Dkt. Nos. 105, 107), ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 99), and DENIES as futile Parrish's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 90).”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiff's related Motions [ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10] be DENIED.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the state criminal matter of State v. William Joseph Strasburg, No. 22-M29M-390, be REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of Mineral County, West Virginia, and that the state criminal matter of State v. William Joseph Strasburg, No. 22-M12M-645, be REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of Grant County, West Virginia.”
“Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion [ECF No. 3] for Injunction, Motions [ECF Nos. 4, 10] for Removal to Federal Court, Motion [ECF No. 5] for a Cease-and-Desist Order, and Emergency Request for Injunction [ECF No. 8]... Plaintiff's related Motions [ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10] be DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- In addition to Reports and Recommendations reviewed by district judges, Aloi's own docket under 28 U.S.C.
- Section 636(c) includes mediations, an environmental citizen-suit consent decree, and routine criminal-magistrate proceedings such as initial appearances, search-warrant applications, and detention matters.
- The sampled consent cases more often ended in settlement or stipulated dismissal than in a contested ruling.
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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, not for Judge Aloi: 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 Aloi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Aloi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Aloi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace