Mark J. Dinsmore
How Judge Dinsmore rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dinsmore
Mark J. Dinsmore began serving as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Indiana in December 2010 and was reappointed in 2018. He earned a law degree from the University of Toledo College of Law and announced plans to retire in 2026.
Judge Dinsmore's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Dinsmore, 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.
- Trial Practice & Courtroom Procedures Before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore ↗
- Instructions Regarding the Filing of Motions Seeking Entry of an Agreed Protective Order ↗
Key rules
Trial
File a written good-cause objection to trial by deposition for a treating health care provider at least 45 days before trial.
“a written objection to the presumption, containing a showing of good cause why it would be prejudicial to permit the witness to testify by deposition, must be filed at least 45 days before the trial date”
Trial
Pick up venire questionnaires in person and return them to the courtroom deputy after jury selection.
“The questionnaires must be picked up in person; they may not be emailed or faxed to counsel”
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).
- General Order Re: Procedures for Sealed Filings ↗
- General Order Re: Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Order Regarding Prisoner Electronic Filing Program ↗
- General Order/Administrative Policy 2024-35 - Electronic Submissions to the Court by Pro Se Litigants ↗
- General Order Re: Presentation of Contaminated Materials for Filing ↗
How Judge Dinsmore decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At summary judgment, Dinsmore rejected an expert opinion whose factual premise was contradicted by the treatment-request record, allowing the deliberate-indifference claim against the treating doctor to proceed.
“Thus, Dr. Fowlkes's opinion is based on a factual premise that is flatly contradicted by the record.”
In Social Security review, treated any step-two headache error as harmless after the analysis proceeded and found the symptom assessment supported by conservative care and infrequent procedures for severe flare-ups.
“In sum, the ALJ relied on appropriate considerations, i.e., conservative treatments and infrequent procedures for severe flare ups, in her subjective symptom analysis of Claimant’s hidradenitis suppurativa.”
In the Ellen B. recommendation, unexplained technical imaging did not adequately contradict claimed symptoms; Dinsmore found error in the administrative judge interpreting those results without medical assistance.
“Courts have repeatedly found error when an ALJ attempts to interpret technical imaging results on their own, and the Undersigned similarly finds error in this case.”
Procedural preferences
Where a Social Security claimant received advance warning that nonappearance could lead to dismissal without further notice, Dinsmore treated a later opportunity to show cause as unnecessary absent evidence of good cause.
“This argument is belied by SSA's regulations, which permits such a finding so long as the claimant was warned in advance that his failure to appear could result in dismissal without further notice.”
Declined abstention in a Hague Convention case where the Hague issue had not actually been litigated in state court, the petitioner retained a statutory choice of forum, and the state court had voluntarily stayed its own proceeding.
“Accordingly, abstention is not appropriate under Younger or Colorado River, and Lawson's abstention motion is DENIED.”
A request for mental-health records in federal court must use the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; an Indiana state procedural petition did not resolve access to the records.
“If Plaintiff still desires access to Defendant's mental health records, he must file a motion to compel those records under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Cautions
A plaintiff who ties claimed emotional distress to chronic medical conditions places those conditions at issue and may be required to provide relevant medical and psychotherapy records despite privilege and privacy objections.
“It would be fundamentally unfair to allow him to do so, and thus seek damages for the exacerbation of his chronic medical conditions, without permitting Defendants to examine his medical records and investigate his claims.”
In the Virgil show-cause proceeding, lack of intent to deceive did not excuse failing to check citations. Dinsmore recommended a personal $10,000 sanction for five briefs containing nonexistent cases; the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“The fact that Mr. Policchio did not file the brief with the intention of deceiving the court does not excuse his failure to check the citations therein.”
A fire protection district was treated as a political subdivision immune from punitive damages on the federal employment claims in this recommendation.
“Defendant is entitled to immunity from Plaintiff's requests for punitive damages.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [Dkt. 12], and dismiss the entirety of Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.”
After the plaintiff failed to respond to an order to show cause or serve one defendant, Dinsmore recommended dismissal of the claims against that defendant without prejudice under Rule 4(m). This court-initiated recommendation remains procedural context and is excluded from motion counts.
“For the reasons stated above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED”
“Accordingly, the motion to amend, [Dkt. 44], is GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to file the Amended Counterclaim”
“In light of this ruling, Kinnard's motion for summary judgment, [Dkt. 36], is DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice to its resubmission”
“The Medical Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's claims against Centurion are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's claims against Dr. Perez shall proceed.”
“For the reasons explained above, Lawson's Motion for Abstention and Stay of Federal Proceedings [Dkt. 18] is DENIED.”
“For the reasons explained above, Defendants' motion to compel is GRANTED. [Dkt. 43.]”
“For the reasons described above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision that Claimant was not disabled.”
“Consequently, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. If Plaintiff still desires access to Defendant's mental health records, he must file a motion to compel those records under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion [Dkt. 27] and awards fees in the amount of $12,677.00.”
“For the reasons explained above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge REVERSE and REMAND the Commissioner's decision that Claimant was not disabled.”
“For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Southern District of Indiana, not for Judge Dinsmore: 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 | 2,443 | 11.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 70 | 2.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,083 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,283 | 26.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 7 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,443 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,243 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,050 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,896 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,988 | 11.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,419 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,168 | 8.2 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 Dinsmore with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dinsmore, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dinsmore's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace