Michael John Aloi
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 a Social Security appeal, the judge treated a claimant's disagreement with how the ALJ weighed conflicting medical opinions as insufficient on its own to disturb the decision, distinguishing a mere difference of interpretation from a genuine failure to build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusion.
“the '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 an attorney civil-rights suit, the judge treated a plaintiff's attempt to reframe the scope of representation as immaterial once the underlying legal theory could not succeed regardless of how that factual dispute was resolved.
“This objection amounts to a distinction without a difference... these facts do not change the ultimate outcome of this case because... Jarrell cannot state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.”
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
A recommendation from this judge is not always the last word: at least one Social Security recommendation to reverse and remand for an award of benefits was independently reviewed and rejected by the district judge, who affirmed the agency instead. Litigants should treat a favorable R&R as persuasive but not guaranteed to survive an opposing party's objection and de novo review.
“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.”
“the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety [ECF No. 28] and OVERRULES Jarrell's objections [ECF No. 29]. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED... Jarrell's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement [ECF No. 23] is DENIED.”
“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.
Put Judge Aloi's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Aloi actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Aloi's own signed orders and cites them.