James R. Marschewski
Judge Marschewski no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Marschewski decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On referred pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 jail-conditions cases he parses a defendant's omnibus summary-judgment motion claim-by-claim, recommending it be granted on some claims and denied on others rather than all-or-nothing; expect a granted-in-part disposition where some claims survive to trial.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims that he was provided an inadequate diet ... The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's claim that his First Amendment rights were violated.”
Cautions
He will recommend a Rule 41(b) dismissal when a pro se plaintiff fails to comply with a court order or prosecute the case; keep your case moving and obey the court's orders.
“this action is DISMISSED on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order and has failed to prosecute this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted in toto. ... defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted with respect to Sheriff Mike Allen and all claims against him are dismissed. The motion is denied with respect to plaintiff's claims against Charles Wall.”
“The report and recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims that he was provided an inadequate diet and his meals were served in an unsanitary environment. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's claim that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was denied access to newspapers or other media sources.”
“The report and recommendation is proper and should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction should be and is hereby entered in favor of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. ... Tempur-Pedic is ordered to post-bond in the amount of $500,000.”
In a pro se Section 1983 case, Marschewski's R&R, filed February 26, 2008, recommended sua sponte dismissal for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Hendren adopted it without objections and dismissed the case 15 days later.
Pro se Section 1983 excessive-force claim. After an earlier Marschewski recommendation recommending summary judgment for the defendants on the other claims (adopted), the remaining individual-capacity claim was referred back; Marschewski held an evidentiary hearing (December 2, 2008) and issued a recommendation recommending judgment for the defendant (no constitutional violation). Hendren reviewed de novo, overruled the plaintiff's objections, and adopted it in full, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Recorded as a dispositive post-hearing merits recommendation, not a party-motion grant -- excluded from the per-motion-type aggregation. It shows Marschewski conducting evidentiary hearings on referred prisoner claims and making credibility and merits findings.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The judge's enumerable caseload is dominated by Social Security disability appeals he decided by consent of the parties (28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c)); pro se prisoner civil-rights matters were referred to him for a report and recommendation rather than decided by him directly. Across the sampled consent appeals, filing to final decision ran a median of roughly thirteen months.
A historical record
Judge Marschewski 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.