🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Denise Page Hood

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 23 signed orders read

How Judge Hood decides

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

What persuades

On a Commissioner's jurisdictional motion to dismiss a Social Security appeal (refusal to reopen), she will deny it where the claimant pleads a colorable constitutional claim -- the existence of such a claim is a legal question for the court and overcomes the statutory bar on reviewing refusals to reopen.

“Since Plaintiff alleges a colorable constitutional claim, the existence of which is determined by the court, this case will not be dismissed.”

Procedural preferences

Routinely resolves Social Security appeals by adopting the magistrate judge's R&R on the cross-motions for summary judgment; when no objection is filed the disposition follows the R&R, and even on objection (Everman) she reviews de novo and explains her agreement. Frame SSA arguments to the magistrate first.

“The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, DENIES Estrada’s Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Cautions

Reconsideration under E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h) requires a 'palpable defect' (an obvious, clear error) whose correction would change the disposition; re-arguing the merits or adding new factual allegations that do not address the actual basis for the ruling will not succeed.

“Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration completely fails to address the grounds for dismissal. His motion ... contains additional factual allegations regarding the merits of his underlying claims. The motion presents no arguments why the dismissal under § 1915(g) was incorrect.”

Signed rulings

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

Beverly Ann Estrada v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:16-cv-10524-DPH-SDD · 2017-09-15
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Estrada’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#14] is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#17] is GRANTED.”

Kevin Weredick v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:16-cv-11694-DPH-SDD · 2017-09-18
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Weredick’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#10] is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#12] is DENIED.”

Melody Lynn Everman v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:13-cv-12762-DPH-SDD · 2015-09-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 9, filed September 3, 2013] is DENIED.”

Van Jenkins v. Donald R. Cook, et al.
2:19-cv-12680-DPH-EAS · 2020-04-08
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“it is ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 7, is DENIED.”

Lee v. Dana Incorporated
2:20-cv-11282 · 2024-09-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED.”

Friday v. American Strategic Insurance Corp.
2:25-cv-10309 · 2025-08-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First-Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief to Compel Appraisal and the Appointment of an Umpire Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED;”

Kaufman Payton & Chapa, P.C. v. Bilanzich
2:11-cv-15563 · 2013-11-05
Judgment on the pleadings (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or to Dismiss the Counterclaim (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED under Rule 12(b)(6).”

Davis v. Wilborn
2:08-cv-13530 · 2010-02-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Failure to State a Claim and Qualified Immunity [Docket No. 8, filed on May 26, 2009] is GRANTED.”

Kubicki v. United States
2:10-cv-10722 · 2010-06-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 3, filed on February 24, 2010] is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”

Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand [Docket No. 9, filed on March 8, 2010] is DENIED.”

Dental Associates, P.C. v. American Dental Partners of Michigan, LLC
2:11-cv-11624 · 2011-12-09
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration, or alternatively to Stay Litigation Pending Arbitration [Docket No. 3, filed on May 9, 2011] is DENIED.”

Bonner v. Washington
2:17-cv-11694 · 2018-07-31
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 42) is GRANTED.”

Kennedy v. Benson
2:24-cv-12375 · 2024-09-18
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS SO ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The reviewed matters include a substantial magistrate-duty group of warrant and miscellaneous applications, which are not treated as merits cases, along with Social Security, prisoner civil-rights, criminal, and government civil-enforcement matters. The mix is descriptive rather than a complete caseload count.

Put Judge Hood's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Hood actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Hood's own signed orders and cites them.