Hanly A. Ingram

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky magistrate 5 signed orders read

How Judge Ingram decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On pro se prisoner civil-rights claims, an unanswered request for admission is deemed admitted under Rule 36 and a failure to respond to a well-supported summary-judgment motion is itself grounds to grant it.

“The failure to present any evidence to counter a well-supported motion for summary judgment alone is grounds for granting the motion. ... Mr. Padgett's admissions coupled with his failure to respond to the motion for summary judgment is grounds for granting the motion.”

On a Fourth-Amendment traffic-stop challenge, objective probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred validates the stop regardless of whether the plate/insurance later prove valid; the true validity is immaterial to the probable-cause inquiry, so no genuine fact dispute defeats summary judgment.

“Even if the license plate and insurance card were entirely valid, as Plaintiffs suggest, that does not change the fact that their suspicious appearance, coupled with information from dispatch showing an invalid registration, gave rise to probable cause to stop the vehicle.”

Procedural preferences

Resolves pretrial-detainee excessive-force claims under the Fourteenth Amendment Kingsley objective-unreasonableness standard (not the Fourth/Eighth), runs the qualified-immunity two-step, and credits video evidence; a plaintiff who rests on unsworn allegations without evidentiary material loses.

“Plaintiff Roberts has failed to offer evidence outside of the four corners of his own pleading to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Defendant Morvac's alleged use of excessive force. Because Roberts cannot demonstrate that Morvac violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity shields Morvac from suit”

Requires pro se objections to an R&R to be specific (cite the problematic portions); general objections that merely restate disagreement do not trigger de novo review.

“only two of the eight objections raised can be considered sufficiently specific to merit de novo review. ... An 'objection' that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution ... is not an 'objection' as that term is used in this context.”

Cautions

Ingram's recommendations are reviewed substantively, not rubber-stamped: in a high-stakes FTCA costs referral the DJ rejected his recommendation to award costs because it analyzed only ability-to-pay and not the full Sixth Circuit (White & White) factors (closeness/difficulty of the case, chilling effect on future litigants).

“As the objection points out, Judge Ingram only addressed the Foster/Whitaker Plaintiffs' ability to pay the fine without regard to the remaining Sixth Circuit criteria. ... This was incomplete. ... the Court, in its discretion, declines to award costs to the United States.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Sun Delin v. John Kinder
· 2026-01-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants John Kinder and Joe Holder [R. 31] is GRANTED”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The Motion(s) for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Sun Delin and Xu Qian [R. 27; R. 30] is DENIED”

Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Return of Property [R. 26] is DENIED”

Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions [R. 28] is DENIED”

Michael Dewayne Padgett v. Big Sandy Regional Detention Center
· 2019-12-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 35] is GRANTED”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Having ordered summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [R. 34] is DENIED AS MOOT”

Dennis Shawn Roberts v. David Morvac
· 2020-01-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 64] is GRANTED”

United States v. Gerald Wayne Collier
· 2011-05-17
Habeas 2255 (petitioner) Denied

“On May 17, 2011, the Court dismissed Defendant Gerald Wayne Collier's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Record No. 115] This dismissal followed entry of a Recommended Disposition by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. [Record No. 108]”

Amy Foster v. United States
· 2025-01-27
Bill of costs (defendant) Granted

“Judge Ingram thus recommended that the Court grant the bill of costs, impose the costs jointly and severally, and limit costs according to formal party designations.”

Motion to disallow costs (plaintiff) Denied

“He further recommended that the Court largely deny the motion to disallow costs.”