Robert Earl Maxwell

United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia district Deceased · served 1965–2010 Appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 13 signed orders read

Judge Maxwell no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Maxwell decides

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

What persuades

Maxwell treated a fully enforced settlement and dismissal with prejudice as dispositive of later claims arising from the same injury.

“Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on res judicata resulting from the prior settlement of these claims.”

When an agency's interpretation fit the text of its own regulation, Maxwell gave that interpretation controlling weight.

“As the Secretary’s interpretation of her own agency’s regulation must be given controlling weight, and as that interpretation is not inconsistent with the plain language of the regulation”

Procedural preferences

In prisoner civil-rights litigation, Maxwell enforced statutory exhaustion before allowing the merits to proceed.

“The PLRA requires the complaint to be dismissed until the record demonstrates on its face that the prisoner has exhausted his administrative remedies.”

Signed rulings

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

Moreland v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.
· 1991-09-19
Application to proceed in forma pauperis (plaintiffs) Denied

“ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED and that the above-styled civil action is hereby DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the docket of this Court.”

Motion for sanctions (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.”

Bowman v. Haynes
· 2003-06-25
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies”

Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. v. Bowers
· 2006-10-03
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss (Docket No. 4) be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.”

Motion to compel arbitration (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED that the Plaintiffs request that the Court order the Defendant to submit his claims to the grievance-arbitration process and enjoin the Defendant from reinitiating all state judicial proceedings regarding his claims, as set forth in its Complaint, be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED”

U.S. Department of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Co.
· 2006-08-23
Motions to compel (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Compel, filed on May 4, 2006, shall be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.”

Davis v. Williamson
· 2002-06-14
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 28) filed herein by Defendant Becky Moore be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED.”

Conti v. United States Immigration Service
· 1995-09-25
Motion to amend (petitioner) Granted

“ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion to Amend be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED, and that the motion shall be construed as the amended pleading.”

Petition for writ of mandamus (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“an Order will be entered which denies as moot the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and dismisses the above-styled miscellaneous action.”

Orum v. Haines
· 1999-09-21
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is dismissed with prejudice and ORDERED stricken from the Docket of this Court.”

United States v. Zimmerman
· 1997-03-14
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Suppress and his Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum be, and the same are hereby, DENIED.”

Motion to quash subpoena (defendant) Denied
Smith v. Liller
· 2004-03-23
Summary judgment (respondent) Granted

“ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Respondent be GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (petitioner) Denied

“ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Petitioner be DENIED.”

Petition for writ of habeas corpus (petitioner) Denied

“ORDERED the § 2254 petition is DENIED and that the case should be DISMISSED from the docket.”

Poling v. Ferguson
· 1995-03-17
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment, be and the same is hereby, GRANTED.”

Phillips v. SuperAmerica Group, Inc.
· 1994-05-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment shall be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED and this civil action shah be dismissed and retired from the docket of the Court.”

Motion to exclude expert witness (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Witness and Defendant’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline are DENIED as MOOT.”

Motion to extend discovery deadline (defendant) Moot / procedural
Hamilton v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
· 2004-03-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED that Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation’s Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket No. 48), shall be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED.”

Default judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“In light of the award of Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, it is further Ordered that the following Motions shall be, and the same are hereby, DENIED as moot: 1. Plaintiffs Motion For Default Judgment Against Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride (Docket No. 18); *639 2.Plaintiffs Request To Seek Relief Of Time — Bar Statute Of Limitations (Docket No. 29); 3. Plaintiffs Motion To Quash (Docket No. 38); 4. Defendant Pilgrim Pride Corporation’s Motion To Compel Discovery (Docket No. 40); 5. Plaintiffs Motion To Quash Subpoena (Docket No. 42); 6. Plaintiffs Motion For Leave Of Court To Amend Complaint (Docket No. 49); and 7. Plaintiffs Motion To Compel (Docket No. 57).”

Request to extend statute of limitations (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Motion to quash (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Motions to compel (defendant) Moot / procedural
Motion to quash subpoena (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Motion to amend (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled matters included prisoner civil-rights, habeas, Social Security, labor, contract, and personal-injury cases. The sample is not a complete measure of Maxwell's historical caseload.

A historical record

Judge Maxwell no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.