Timothy P. O'Hara
How Judge O'Hara rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge O'Hara
Timothy P. O’Hara serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Colorado. His chambers are in Denver at the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse.
Judge O'Hara's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge O'Hara, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
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 O'Hara decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Martinez Garrido v. Baltasar, he found that the detention statutes did not require mandatory detention for the petitioner’s circumstances, following the weight of district authority.
“Because neither the Supreme Court nor the Tenth Circuit have yet weighed in on this issue, this Court finds more persuasive the great weight of authority in this Circuit and throughout the country that have interpreted §§ 1225(b) and 1226(a) and have concluded that they do not support the mandatory detention of noncitizens in Petitioner’s circumstances.”
Procedural preferences
In Baldwin v. Pedregon, he recommended granting motions to dismiss the amended civil-rights complaint; the district judge adopted that recommendation with changes to the prejudice assigned to some claims.
“The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 84] is GRANTED; Plaintiff's remaining claims against the served Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice ... [other claims] DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Cautions
In Evans v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, he recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of Article III standing.
“For the reasons set forth above, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), the court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 36] be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's FAC [ECF 7] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Hamilton Home Builders, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [Doc. 42] is GRANTED; ... The Texas Agencies' Opening Brief and Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 43] is GRANTED; ... IFIC's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 63] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 70] is GRANTED (collectively 'Defendants' Motions to Dismiss'); recommendation 'ADOPTED as MODIFIED to dismiss Mr. Fragstein's claims without prejudice'.”
“The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara [Doc. 102] is ADOPTED as MODIFIED; ... Defendant Warren's Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 83] is GRANTED;”
“The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 84] is GRANTED; Plaintiff's remaining claims against the served Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice ... [other claims] DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, ECF No. 25, is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF 9, is GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff's first and second claims for relief and DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff's third and fourth claims for relief”
“This Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 19] be DENIED.”
“To the extent necessary, the Court also RECOMMENDS that Claims One, Two, Three, and Five be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE against Defendant JeffCo.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 61] be granted in full and that summary judgment be entered in Defendant's favor as to all of Plaintiff's claims.”
“Defendant's Motion to Exclude or Limit Certain Opinions of Dean Stansbury Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 [ECF 62] be granted and that the opinions of Mr. Stansbury disclosed on November 12, 2024 (both in the body of the Motion to Compel [ECF 58] and the attachment [ECF 58-3 at pp. 8-11]) should be excluded.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Pay for Claim [ECF 58] be denied.”
“Based upon the record herein, the Court respectfully recommends the Motion be GRANTED.”
“The magistrate judge recommends granting summary judgment on Claim 1 ... The magistrate judge also recommends granting summary judgment on Claim 2 ... the magistrate judge recommends denying summary judgment on Claim 3 ... The magistrate judge recommends entering summary judgment on Claim 4 because plaintiff fails to show an adverse employment action.”
“The Motion to Dismiss at ECF 46 be granted in part such that (1) the Third Claim for Relief (Deliberate Indifference/Failure to Protect) be dismissed as brought against Defendants Hartley, Fheure, Smith, and Ward. (2) the Fourth Claim for Relief (First Amendment Retaliation) be dismissed as brought against Defendants Maul, Gouty, Velasquez, and Goodsell. (3) the Fifth Claim for Relief (Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need) be dismissed as brought against Defendants Maul, Gouty, Velasquez, and Goodsell ... (4) the Sixth Claim for Relief (ADA) and Seventh Claim for Relief (Rehabilitation Act) be dismissed to the extent Plaintiff claims intentional discrimination. The Motion to Dismiss at ECF 46 be denied in all other respects.”
“The Motion to Dismiss at ECF 78 be granted. As such, the Third Claim for Relief (Deliberate Indifference/Failure to Protect) be dismissed as brought against Defendants Churich and Mascarenas.”
“The Motion to Dismiss at ECF 94 be granted. As such, the Third Claim for Relief (Deliberate Indifference/Failure to Protect) be dismissed as brought against Defendants Eddy, Galkowski, and Montano.”
“1) As to Plaintiff's first claim against Defendants Roetker and Gutierrez, this Court recommends that Defendants' Motion is GRANTED and Count One of Plaintiff's TAC [ECF 51] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2) As to Plaintiff's first claim against Defendant Stice, this Court recommends that Defendants' Motion be DENIED due to Plaintiff's allegation of excessive force. 3) As to Plaintiff's second claim against all Defendants, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED and Count Two of Plaintiff's TAC will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“For the reasons set forth above, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), the court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 36] be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's FAC [ECF 7] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] is GRANTED as to Count One;”
“Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] is GRANTED as to Counts One and Three;”
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 | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 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 United States District Court for the District of Colorado, not for Judge O'Hara: 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 | 2,669 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 497 | 7.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,076 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 63 | 26.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 33 | 39.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,669 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,704 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,560 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,614 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,637 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,637 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,577 | 7.5 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 O'Hara with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge O'Hara, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge O'Hara's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace