Candace J. Smith
How Judge Smith rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Smith
Candace J. Smith is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting in Covington. She earned a bachelor’s degree from the College of Mount St. Joseph and a law degree from Northern Kentucky University. She joined the court in 2010 and handles referred matters as well as civil cases assigned with the parties’ consent.
Judge Smith's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Smith'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).
- General Order 25-7 - Motions Under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) ↗
- General Order 23-08 - Plea Agreements and Supplements in Criminal Cases ↗
- General Order 22-15 - Standing Procedures for Social Security Actions ↗
- Joint General Order 21-1 - Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures ↗
- General Order 21-1 - Procedures for Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- General Order 14-11 - Possession and Use of Electronic Devices by Bar ↗
How Judge Smith decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Adams's strip-search case, Smith recommended summary judgment for prison officials after applying the Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis to the prison's search for contraband. The district judge adopted her recommendation.
“detecting and deterring the possession of contraband is a legitimate penological objective ... [the R&R] finds Adams's policy arguments do not affect the calculus under the Fourth Amendment”
For PLRA exhaustion, a generalized fear of retaliation does not make the grievance process unavailable unless the prisoner connects that fear to filing a grievance or shows that officials thwarted an attempt to file.
“But Bailey has offered no evidence that ties his fear of retaliation to the filing of a grievance; he has similarly offered no evidence that he was thwarted by any Defendants from actually filing a grievance.”
Procedural preferences
In Jones's § 2255 case, Smith assessed the ineffective-assistance arguments and recommended denying relief and a certificate of appealability. The district judge described her assessment when ruling on the recommendation.
“Judge Smith carefully assessed the arguments presented by Jones and determined that Jones' counsel was not deficient ... reasonable jurists would not debate the denial”
In United States v. Adkins, Smith recommended partial § 2255 relief after finding that defense counsel had failed to file an appeal Adkins requested. She recommended vacating and reentering the same judgment to permit the appeal; the district judge adopted her recommendation.
“the failure to perfect a direct appeal, in derogation of a defendant's actual request, is a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment”
Cautions
In Adams's strip-search case, Smith recommended denying Adams's motion to add nonjoinder claims alongside her summary-judgment recommendation for the prison officials.
“the R&R recommends that Adams's Motion to Add Nonjoinder ... be denied”
In Bays's employment case, Smith granted the airport board's summary-judgment motion. She found that temporal proximity alone did not show pretext and that the record lacked independent evidence that the board's reasons were pretextual.
“temporal proximity between a protected activity and an adverse action, cannot, alone, establish pretext. ... this record is bereft of any 'other, independent evidence' to demonstrate the Board's actions were pretextual.”
In Ratliff, Smith granted summary judgment on the tortious-interference claims but denied it on the First Amendment retaliation and Kentucky Whistleblower Act claims.
“Defendants' Motion is granted as to Plaintiffs tortious interference claims; the Motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claims and Plaintiffs' KWA claims.”
A Section 2255 withdrawal may be without prejudice yet still foreclose a later filing if the one-year limitations period has expired, absent a statutory exception.
“Although the pending § 2255 Motion would be denied without prejudice, as a practical matter, any subsequent filing by Taylor-Jones would be time-barred unless one of a few narrow exceptions provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) were to apply.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 35) is GRANTED ... This civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“Adams’s Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(b) Joinder of Contingent Claims (Doc. # 31) is DENIED;”
“Adams’s Motion for Nonjoinder Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 (Doc. # 32) is DENIED;”
“Adams’s Motion to Add Nonjoinder Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(i) (Doc. # 43) is DENIED;”
“Judge Smith recommends that the Court deny Jones' motion, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the related collateral civil proceeding ... Jones' Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 ... is DENIED”
“Magistrate Judge Smith issued her R&R on November 25, 2024, recommending that all pending motion be denied. [Record No. 222] The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report in full and denied Velasquez-Gomez's 2255 motion on December 16, 2024.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant Jayce Gibbs's Motion to Suppress (R. 40) as to his Facebook account and Cash App account and Johnnie Broughton's Motion Joining Codefendant Gibbs's Motion to Suppress as to his Facebook account (R. 42) BE DENIED.”
“The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 57) is hereby adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court; ... Defendants' Motions to Suppress (Docs. # 38 and 40) are hereby denied in full.”
“The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 89) is hereby ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court; Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 (Doc. # 78) is hereby DENIED.”
“The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 68] is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of this Court; The Petitioner's Section 2255 Petition [R. 61] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Recommended Disposition of United States Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith [Record No. 10] is ADOPTED IN FULL and INCORPORATED by reference. ... Blake Haddix's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 [Record No. 1] is DENIED, and this matter is DISMISSED from the Court's docket.”
“The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, [R. 6], is ADOPTED; Defendant Thomas Bernard's three filings, [R. 1]; [R. 4]; [R. 5], are dismissed without prejudice; No certificate of appealability will issue.”
“This Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, R. 8. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, R. 1, is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Smith [DE 21] in its entirety and Greer's habeas petition [DE 1] is DENIED. ... This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the Court's active docket.”
“The Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition [DE #15] is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court; ... the petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 [DE #1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
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 | 1 |
| 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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, not for Judge Smith: 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 | 725 | 8.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 107 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 602 | 8.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 6 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 37.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 725 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 653 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 935 | 14 months |
| Sep 2022 | 810 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 811 | 11 months |
| Sep 2020 | 804 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,098 | 12 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 Smith with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Smith, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Smith's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace