Michael E. Hegarty
Judge Hegarty no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Hegarty decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment he expects record evidence, not assertion: a self-serving affidavit unsupported by the record will not create a genuine dispute of material fact and cannot defeat summary judgment.
“Magistrate Judge Hegarty was right that a self-serving affidavit is insufficient on its own to create a genuine dispute of material fact and must find support in the record.”
Procedural preferences
Looks to the true procedural posture over the movant's label: a Rule 12(b) motion filed after answers are on file, or one decided under Rule 56, is treated as Rule 12(c)/Rule 56 -- which can defeat a fee request keyed to a Rule 12(b) dismissal. Reads fee-shifting statutes narrowly.
“to the extent the Defendant sought dismissal pursuant to Rule 12 in its combined motion, such request was not proper under subsection (b) ... and would have been required to be treated under subsection (c) as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
Cautions
In prisoner / pro se civil-rights cases he will recommend summary judgment for defendants where the only contrary evidence is the plaintiff's own uncorroborated testimony; but he will also recommend DENYING qualified immunity (and a defense MSJ in part) where the plaintiff's version, if believed, would establish a clearly-established violation -- the split in Smith v. Crockett shows he reads the record both ways.
“if the jury finds the facts to be as Plaintiff represents, Defendant Crockett denied Plaintiff's constitutional right to a religious diet ... summary judgment in Defendant Crockett's favor on the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate at this juncture.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Before the court is the amended recommendation (Doc. 65) of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty that the court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40). ... Defendants' motion (Doc. 40) is GRANTED.”
“The Recommendation (ECF No. 188) is ADOPTED in its entirety; ... Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 168) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 171) is DENIED as set forth above”
“the Court will ... accept Judge Hegarty's recommendation to grant Omnicell's motion for summary judgment and deny Mr. Barnes' motion for summary judgment. ... Defendant Omnicell, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 45] is GRANTED.”
“plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 43] is DENIED.”
“the Court denies Defendant City of Littleton's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs [filed February 28, 2019; ECF No. 242].”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
These are administrative-duty matters, so the durations measure case lifespan rather than merits-motion timing and do not represent his dispositive work. His civil consent and referral caseload is not included in this caseload snapshot.
A historical record
Judge Hegarty 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.