Paul R. Cherry
How Judge Cherry rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cherry
Paul R. Cherry serves as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Indiana on a part-time recall basis, following full-time service from 2003 through 2018. Before joining the federal bench, he was a DeKalb County Circuit Court judge and prosecuting attorney.
Judge Cherry's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Cherry'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 Cherry decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Illinois National Insurance Co. v. Temian, Cherry applied Indiana’s choice-of-law factors to the insurance policy and concluded that Illinois law governed the contract. He separately analyzed the federally mandated MCS-90 endorsement.
“all of the factors lead to a conclusion that the law of Illinois governs the insurance contract”
In the reviewed Social Security appeal, Cherry required a logical bridge from worsening visual evidence to the specific capacity for frequent near acuity and rejected an inference based on generic occupational requirements rather than how the claimant actually performed the prior job.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS the relief sought in the Social Security Opening Brief of Plaintiff [DE 16], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order.”
Procedural preferences
In Stevens v. School City of Hobart, Cherry ordered production of a party’s own deposition transcript under Rule 26(b)(3)(C) without requiring a special showing of need or hardship.
“the requesting party just needs to ask; he does not need to make any special showing that he needs his prior statement or cannot otherwise obtain it without undue hardship”
In Leaf Funding, Inc. v. Brogan Pharmaceuticals, the parties consented to Cherry’s authority under § 636(c) to conduct proceedings and enter final judgment. He granted the lessor summary judgment on liability and damages in principle while requesting further briefing on the amount owed.
“The parties filed forms of consent to have this case assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment in this case.”
He applied Rule 15's liberal amendment standard where a plaintiff sought only to clarify a legal theory already supported by pleaded facts, and allowed related counterclaims where shared facts, discovery, and judicial economy favored resolving them together.
“The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint [DE 34]”
In Kesterke v. BCD White, Cherry denied a motion to strike allegations about sexual comments and retaliation because they were tied to the plaintiff’s pleaded harassment and retaliation claims.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Strike [DE 11].”
Cautions
In ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor v. Amex Nooter, Cherry granted a motion to strike new factual support raised for the first time in a reply brief on a sanctions motion, because the opposing party had no opportunity to respond. He denied the underlying sanctions motion.
“The Court finds that Amex Nooter provides new and substantive factual support for its Motion for Sanctions for the first time in the reply brief”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Reverse, Enter Judgment and Remand Commissioner's Decision for Further Administrative Proceedings [DE 21] and DENIES as moot the relief requested in Plaintiffs Opening Brief. The Court ORDERS that this matter is REMANDED for a de novo hearing consistent with this Order.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE 57]. The Court DECLARES that the Illinois National Policy ... does not provide coverage for Ionut Temian for claims brought against him ... in the underlying lawsuits.”
“the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant Colt International, L.L.C.'s Motion to Stay Litigation and to Compel Arbitration [DE 8] and hereby STAYS the court proceedings solely between Plaintiff and Colt pending the outcome of binding arbitration.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff LEAF’S Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 17], granting summary judgment in favor of LEAF and against Brogan and Dines, jointly and severally, on liability and on damages in an amount yet to be determined.”
“Plaintiff Dale A. Barton take nothing by his Complaint and judgment is entered in favor of Defendant United States Postal Service.”
“On Mrs. Kimmel's allegations of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Western Reserve, finding that Indiana does not recognize a common law duty to accept or reject an application for life insurance within a specific period of time ...”
“the Court denies in part and denies as moot in part the Motion to Strike.”
“the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order [DE 2] and ORDERS that the parties use the pseudonym 'John Doe' for Plaintiff and the pseudonym 'Jane Doe' to refer to the female complainant ...”
“The Court accordingly GRANTS the Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff's Statement [DE 23] and ORDERS Defendants to give Plaintiff a complete copy of the transcript of his deposition.”
“Plaintiff requests that the January 16, 2009, decision of the Administrative Law Judge to deny him disability insurance benefits be reversed or, alternatively, remanded for further proceedings. For the following reasons, the Court grants the request and remands for further proceedings.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Motion for Sanctions.”
“the Court grants the Motion to Strike and denies the alternative request for leave to file a Sur-Reply.”
“the Court grants the Attorney General's Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Turner's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint [DE 34]”
“The Court further GRANTS the Renewed Motion for Leave to File Second Proposed Amended Answer to Complaint, Counter-Claim, and Jury Demand [DE 32] with relief different than requested.”
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 | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, not for Judge Cherry: 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 | 1,338 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 68 | 2.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 958 | 7.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 302 | 14.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 43.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,338 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,336 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,248 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,434 | 12.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,258 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,408 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,576 | 13.8 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 Cherry with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cherry, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cherry's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace