Gary R. Jones
How Judge Jones rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jones
Gary R. Jones serves on recall as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Florida. He earned degrees from Boston University, the University of Miami School of Law, and New York University School of Law.
Judge Jones's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Jones's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Jones decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On prisoner medical-care claims, he required evidence that providers knew of and disregarded a serious risk. A claimant who received ongoing care could not create a factual dispute merely by preferring different or faster treatment, absent evidence that delay worsened the condition.
“Generally, an inmate who receives a medical diagnosis and care, but desires a different diagnosis or treatment, can't show deliberate indifference. ... At its essence, this case is one in which Plaintiff wanted a different, less conservative, treatment than that which the medical staff provided. These are plainly matters of medical judgment that are not an appropriate basis for liability under the Eighth Amendment.”
In Gatewood v. Unlimited Path, he recommended denial of an ADA dismissal motion because unreviewed state administrative findings did not preclude the federal claim and Rooker-Feldman did not apply to an agency decision.
“The exception carved out in Elliott, however, extends to ADA claims because 'the ADA explicitly incorporates all of the enforcement powers, remedies, and procedures of Title VII.' ... The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies only to state court decisions, not to state administrative decisions.”
In the 3M Combat Arms Earplug litigation, he recommended denying a motion to compel a Defense Department officer's deposition after the fuller agency record supplied independent grounds for its Touhy denial.
“Defendants, however, rely on 'facts [they] never presented' to the Department, and, thus, are not part of the administrative record. This is unavailing on APA review ... a reviewing court will uphold an agency action resting on several independent grounds if any of those grounds validly supports the result.”
Procedural preferences
In Newman v. Izuegbu, he recommended dismissing a prisoner medical-care case without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before suit; a grievance completed after filing came too late.
“the grievance process for grievance number 15-6-29219 was not completed until months after suit was filed, the grievance is insufficient to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit was filed. Plaintiff's complaint, therefore, must be dismissed for failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit.”
In Addison, Jones recommended consolidating a second habeas petition with the first case. He said the second petition should have been treated as a motion to amend when filed and could later be construed as seeking Rule 60(b) relief.
“Given the unusual procedural posture of this case, and affording pro se Petitioner the benefit of liberal construction, the instant Petition may be construed as seeking relief under Rule 60(b) due to the fact that the Court could have treated the Petition as a motion to amend and resolved it at the same time as the earlier Petition.”
Cautions
In a 2016 prisoner civil-rights case, Jones recommended dismissal without prejudice after finding that the plaintiff had failed to disclose prior litigation; he also recommended a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
“The undersigned therefore concludes that dismissal of this case without prejudice for abuse of the judicial process is an appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s lack of candor. The dismissal of this case for abuse of the judicial process should operate as a ‘strike’ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).”
In McKinnon v. Wright, he struck two motions because they were improper in form and substance in that case.
“Both of these motions are improper in form and substance and will be stricken. ... it is ORDERED that the motions, ECF Nos. 27 and 28, are STRICKEN.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that KCN's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 136, should be GRANTED.”
“Defendants Corizon, LLC, Linda Cain, Guilda Epps and Sandra Streetman's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 58, should be GRANTED.”
“Defendant, Dr. Juan Almeyda-Gomez's Motion for Final Summary Judgment, ECF No. 80, should be GRANTED”
“Defendant, Juan Almeyda-Gomez's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, ECF No. 63, should be DENIED as MOOT.”
“In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Verified Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12, should be DENIED. Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed with her ADA claim.”
“it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendants Dr. Moses Izuegbu, M.D., Matthew McGuffin and Expedito Salvador's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 62, should be GRANTED and the case should be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion To Remand (Doc. 21) be GRANTED, and that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner.”
“For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the decision of the Commissioner should be AFFIRMED.”
“In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the decision of the Commissioner should be REVERSED AND REMANDED to the Commissioner under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings with instructions to the ALJ to analyze the medical evidence and medical opinions as described above – and as required by applicable law, regulations and rulings – and to properly analyze the mental and physical demands of Plaintiff's past relevant work as a bill collector and then determine whether Plaintiff can perform the mental and physical demands of that job in light of the ALJ's evaluation of Plaintiff's RFC.”
“Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion to Compel the Deposition of LTC Martin Robinette, ECF No. 1457, should be DENIED.”
Prisoner 42 U.S.C. 1983 case combining an order and a recommendation. In the order portion, plaintiff's improperly filed summary-judgment motion (ECF 27) and a motion to locate a bank account (ECF 28) were stricken as improper in form and substance: 'it is ORDERED that the motions, ECF Nos. 27 and 28, are STRICKEN.' In the recommendation portion, the disposition, Jones recommended the case be dismissed for abuse of the judicial process because the prisoner failed to disclose prior litigation on the complaint form: 'dismissal of this case without prejudice for abuse of the judicial process is an appropriate sanction for Plaintiff's lack of candor,' and 'The dismissal of this case for abuse of the judicial process should operate as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).' The dismissal was without prejudice and counts as a 1915(g) strike. It reflects how strictly he enforces prisoner candor on the disclosure of prior litigation.
28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas matter, resolved on procedural grounds rather than the merits. The respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as successive was withdrawn; the respondent instead moved to transfer or consolidate. Applying Ching v. United States and Gonzalez v. Crosby, Jones recommended construing the prematurely filed second petition as a Rule 60(b) motion or motion to amend the still-pending first petition rather than dismissing it as successive, and consolidating the cases: 'it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be consolidated with Addison v. Secretary, Case No. 5:10-cv-39-MCR-EMT, for all further proceedings.' It reflects his liberal construction of a pro se petitioner's premature successive petition to avoid an AEDPA bar.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 343 days (N = 13).
- His consent/decision docket (oldest-first, 21 cases filed 2008-2011, all terminated) is dominated by Social Security disability appeals (DIWC/DIWW/SSID: a large block filed mid-2011: WALKER, LARRY, RUSHING, TILLMAN, SICKLER, LEWIS, STRICKLAND, KLINE-PARRIS, STRAWDER, HARROLD), prisoner 42:1983 civil-rights (FREDERICK, PARKER, HARRELL, REILLY), FLSA wage cases (CORONADO, OFFENBACHER), ADA (CUSSON), and diversity contract/insurance (B-K CYPRESS insurance, SWIFT contract, WELLS FARGO foreclosure).
- This reflects an N.D. Fla. magistrate's referred and consent civil mix; criminal duties (first appearances, recommendations on 2255 motions, certificate-of-appealability recommendations) are not enumerated here but appear in his published signature record.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Jones was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2022.
| 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 | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 Northern District of Florida, not for Judge Jones: 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 | 148,428 | 47.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 30 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 148,385 | 47.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 4 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 148,428 | 47.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 140,479 | 43.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 36,307 | 27.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 57,845 | 21.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 14,972 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,038 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,148 | 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 Jones with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jones, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jones's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace