Omar J. Aboulhosn
How Judge Aboulhosn rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Aboulhosn
Omar J. Aboulhosn serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia in Bluefield and Beckley. Before joining the federal bench, he practiced law in southern West Virginia and served as a circuit judge in Mercer County. He earned degrees from Concord University and West Virginia University College of Law.
Judge Aboulhosn's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Aboulhosn'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 Aboulhosn decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Keczan v. Berryhill, Aboulhosn reversed a Social Security benefits denial and remanded for further proceedings. He directed the Commissioner to consider whether the claimant's fibromyalgia was an impairment under the regulations and whether it caused limitations relevant to the remaining steps of the evaluation.
“REMANDS the final decision of the Commissioner back to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings in order to consider whether Claimant's fibromyalgia is an impairment under the Regulations and to consider any limitations therefrom in the remaining steps in the sequential evaluation process.”
Procedural preferences
In Dodson v. Berryhill, he directed counsel to certify whether Dr. Kropac was involved in the Social Security matter and said the case would be reassigned to another magistrate judge if so.
“Counsel is DIRECTED to file with the Court a pleading certifying whether Dr. Kropac is or is not involved in this matter. Should Dr. Kropac be involved, the undersigned will direct that the Clerk rotate this matter to another Magistrate Judge in the District.”
Cautions
In England v. Interline Brands, Inc., Aboulhosn granted a motion to compel discovery responses and ordered a $1,000 daily fine beginning February 20, 2019, for each day the defendant’s corporate representative failed to appear at the ordered hearing.
“Beginning on 2/20/2019, Defendant shall be fined $1,000 each day that the corporate representative fails to appear as ordered for the hearing.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“DENYING Plaintiff's 12 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings; GRANTING Defendant's 13 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings; AFFIRMING the final decision of the Commissioner and DISMISSING this matter from the docket of this Court.”
“denying Plaintiff's 9 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 10 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings; affirming the final decision of the Commissioner; dismissing this matter from the docket of this Court.”
“denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 18 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; affirming the final decision of the decision of the Commissioner; dismissing this matter from the docket of this Court.”
“The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, DENIES Defendant's 20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this matter back to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings in order to properly evaluate the treating psychologist's opinion under the Regulations.”
“denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting the Defendant's 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; affirming the final decision of the Commissioner; and dismissing this matter from the docket of this Court.”
“the Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED, the Defendants 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this matter is hereby DISMISSED from the docket of this Court.”
“The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's 13 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent she prays for reversal of the Commissioner's decision, DENIES Defendant's 15 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, REVERSES and REMANDS the final decision of the Commissioner back to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings in order to consider whether Claimant's fibromyalgia is an impairment under the Regulations and to consider any limitations therefrom in the remaining steps in the sequential evaluation process.”
“the Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED; the Defendant's 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED; the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and this matter is DISMISSED from the docket of this Court.”
“denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, granting Defendant's 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, affirming the final decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this matter from the docket of this Court.”
“ORDER granting the United States' 46 MOTION to Compel. It is ORDERED that Larry Austin respond to the United States' second request for interrogatories and production from Larry Austin no later than 24 hours prior to his deposition.”
“ORDER granting 49 MOTION for Sanctions: It is further ORDERED that, upon consideration of: (1) Larry Austin's acting in bad faith by failing to participate in discovery; (2) the material prejudice his noncompliance caused to the United States by his failure to admit facts asserted in his answer, as well as his failure to produce to the United States the evidence requested in discovery; (3) the need for deterrence of a party failing to comply with a Court order compelling discovery and failing to attend a properly noticed deposition; and (4) the effectiveness of less drastic sanctions...”
“Denying Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; affirming the final decision of the Commissioner; dismissing this matter from the docket of this Court.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 1.0 days (N = 4).
Consistent with his role as a consent-jurisdiction magistrate judge, the bulk of his caseload is Social Security disability appeals; he also handles general civil matters referred to him for discovery management or decided by full party consent (employment, product-liability, insurance, and consumer-protection cases), plus criminal duty-magistrate matters such as search-warrant applications, initial appearances, and misdemeanor pleas.
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 Southern District of West Virginia, not for Judge Aboulhosn: 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 | 470 | 10 months |
| Closed with no court action | 16 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 441 | 10.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 19.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 470 | 10 months |
| Sep 2024 | 469 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 473 | 11.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 471 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 939 | 14.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 3,013 | 62.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 41,342 | 53.9 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 Aboulhosn with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Aboulhosn, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Aboulhosn's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace