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

Ellen S. Carmody

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan magistrate Retired 2019 · served 2000–2019 29 signed orders read

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

How Judge Carmody decides

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

What persuades

Carmody treated an integration clause and nominal consideration as controlling evidence that a property transfer did not establish ownership sufficient to contest forfeiture.

“The consideration is clearly stated on the purchase agreement as one dollar and the purchase agreement contains an integration clause.”

In patent claim construction, she preserved words with distinct technical meanings rather than replacing them with broader lay phrasing.

“The Court must presume, therefore, that Plaintiffs purposely included the phrase ‘distal end’ in these claims”

Procedural preferences

Carmody treated claim construction as a focused interpretive task and declined redundant construction where a disputed term needed no further explanation.

“Claim construction ... is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.”

She separated consumer-protection claims from business-to-business transactions when the governing statute covered purchases primarily for personal purposes.

“the MCPA applies only to purchases by consumers and does not apply to purchases that are primarily for business purposes”

Cautions

Carmody dismissed an appeal without prejudice when the claimant repeatedly failed to prosecute or comply with court orders.

“For the reasons articulated herein, the Court orders that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s Orders.”

Signed rulings

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

Wierenga v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-22 · 2015-09-23
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”

Zimmer v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-48 · 2013-03-28
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”

Remelts v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-110 · 2013-03-13
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-151 · 2012-12-11
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-391 · 2013-09-23
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“the Commissioner’s decision is reversed”

Posont v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-545 · 2013-09-23
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”

Bagley v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-549 · 2013-09-16
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“the Commissioner’s decision is reversed”

Ruiter v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-781 · 2013-09-24
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”

Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-977 · 2014-01-31
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“the Commissioner’s decision is reversed”

Britton v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-1155 · 2014-03-24
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“the Commissioner’s decision is reversed”

Dungey v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-1190 · 2014-03-25
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“the Commissioner’s decision is reversed”

Hibbard v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-1216 · 2014-03-27
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 473 days (N = 7).

The enumerated historical slice consists of consent Social Security appeals assigned directly to Carmody. It is a narrow subject-matter cohort and does not represent her full referral workload.

A historical record

Judge Carmody 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.