Candace J. Smith
How Judge Smith decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On prisoner Fourth-Amendment strip-search claims, applies the Stoudemire/Bell v. Wolfish four-factor reasonableness test (scope, manner, justification, location) and defers to the prison's legitimate penological interest in detecting contraband.
“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”
Procedural preferences
On sec.2255, conducts a detailed multi-ground Strickland merits review and recommends denying a certificate of appealability in the same R&R.
“Judge Smith carefully assessed the arguments presented by Jones and determined that Jones' counsel was not deficient ... reasonable jurists would not debate the denial”
Cautions
Recommends denying pro se prisoner joinder/amendment motions (Rule 18(b)/21/26(a)) alongside granting the defense MSJ when the added claims/parties would not survive.
“the R&R recommends that Adams's Motion to Add Nonjoinder ... be denied”
On consent (636(c)) employment MSJs, runs the full McDonnell Douglas burden-shift and grants the employer where the plaintiff fails to rebut a documented legitimate business reason; she expressly holds that temporal proximity ALONE cannot establish pretext and rejects a 'cat's paw'/rubber-stamp theory absent independent evidence of bias.
“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.”
But she does NOT reflexively grant defense MSJs: on the same kind of consent docket she let First Amendment retaliation and Kentucky Whistleblower Act claims proceed to trial while granting only the tortious-interference portion -- a granted-in-part outcome showing claim-by-claim merits scrutiny.
“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.”
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”
“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.”