Matthew A. Stinnett
How Judge Stinnett rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Stinnett
Matthew A. Stinnett serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington. He earned a history degree from Transylvania University and a law degree from Northern Kentucky University's Salmon P. Chase College of Law.
Judge Stinnett's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Stinnett, 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.
- Civil Discovery Dispute Process ↗
- Civil Discovery Dispute Worksheet ↗
- Standing Order re: Sealing ↗
- Matthew A. Stinnett, Magistrate Judge ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Copy all counsel on correspondence to chambers about a discovery dispute.
“All counsel in the litigation must be copied on this correspondence.”
Discovery
After an unsuccessful meet and confer, contact Judge Stinnett’s chambers about the discovery dispute.
“If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, the parties may contact chambers at [email protected] with the following information:”
Discovery
Submit the Civil Discovery Dispute Worksheet before the conference call as the scheduling order directs.
“Prior to the call and as directed in the Order, the parties must submit the Civil Discovery Dispute Worksheet.”
Discovery
Complete the discovery worksheet: failure to do so may cause Judge Stinnett to rule against your position.
“Failure to complete the Worksheet and/or comply with its requirements may result in the Court ruling against your position in the dispute.”
Conferences
Jointly request a settlement conference by formal motion or email, subject to the listed exceptions.
“The parties shall jointly request a settlement conference via formal motion or email ([email protected]), except in cases presided over by Judge Reeves or Judge Stinnett by consent.”
Sealing
After a Central Division magistrate warrant returns to Judge Stinnett, the government has 14 days to move to keep it sealed.
“Upon the return of the warrants to the undersigned, the United States shall have fourteen (14) days to file a motion to maintain the sealed status.”
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 Stinnett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Kim v. Ampler Burgers Ohio, Stinnett recommended dismissing a Kentucky insurance bad-faith claim after finding the complaint failed each element of the Wittmer test. The district judge adopted his recommendation.
“explaining the three-element test set forth in Wittmer v. Jones ... Magistrate Judge Stinnett goes on to explain why Plaintiff's allegations fail to satisfy each of the three essential elements”
On traffic-stop suppression, objective probable cause for the traffic violation governs regardless of the officer's subjective motive; an ongoing equipment violation (window tint) supports the stop, the Rodriguez 'extension' question turns on the stop's mission, and a K9 alert justifies the search once reliability is shown by training evidence.
“Jackson's tint strip was an ongoing violation of KRS 189.110(9) for which he could be lawfully stopped without infringing on his Fourth Amendment rights, regardless of Officer Gabriel's subjective motives ... the K9 ... is a well-trained and reliable narcotics-detection K9”
In United States v. Rebmann, Stinnett recommended denying § 2255 relief after finding Rebmann’s later account of counsel’s advice and his hypothetical willingness to go to trial did not establish prejudice. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“Rebmann's claim of prejudice based on conversations he had with counsel fails because those statements are the equivalent of 'merely telling the court now that [he] would have gone to trial if [he] had gotten different advice.'”
Procedural preferences
In Jackson's suppression case, Stinnett held an evidentiary hearing before recommending that the district court deny the motion.
“Judge Stinnett held a hearing on the matter on November 19, 2025. ... Judge Stinnett then prepared a Report & Recommendation recommending that Defendant Jackson's Motion be denied.”
In Stinnett v. Phipps, Stinnett recommended denying Wellpath's motion to dismiss without prejudice. Wellpath relied on its bankruptcy but did not adequately explain how the reorganization affected the plaintiff's claims, leaving its requested dismissal insufficiently supported.
“Considering the above procedural defects, and because it is Wellpath’s burden to demonstrate that it is entitled to the relief sought through its Motion to Dismiss, it is recommended that its Motion be denied without prejudice.”
Cautions
On sec.2254 habeas, even where Kentucky's framework opens the Martinez/Trevino door to excuse a procedural default via ineffective post-conviction counsel, the underlying Strickland trial-IAC claim must still be 'substantial' on the merits; conclusory IAC grounds contradicted by the plea-colloquy record fail.
“even if Stacy can establish that his post-conviction counsel was constitutionally ineffective ... he has not established that his underlying claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel are 'substantial' or have 'some merit'”
In Lawson’s prisoner civil rights case, Stinnett recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) and Local Rule 5.3 after Lawson stopped participating; the district court adopted the recommendation.
“Given Lawson's extended lack of participation in the case, Judge Stinnett now recommends that the Court grant Fuson and Halloway's motion and dismiss Lawson's claims without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) and LR 5.3.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Union Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss, [R. 19], is GRANTED. Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [R. 15], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [R. 1] is DENIED with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 33] is ADOPTED”
“Defendant Jackson's Motion to Suppress [R. 44] is DENIED.”
“Defendant Myles Gregory Burdette's Motion to Suppress Evidence [R. 46] is DENIED”
“Magistrate Judge Stinnett recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part Hernandez- Cano’s Motion to Suppress. ... Hernandez-Cano’s objections are OVERRULED, and Judge Stinnett’s recommendation is ADOPTED.”
“Rebmann's petition for relief under Section 2255 is DENIED and the Court declines to grant an evidentiary hearing or issue a certificate of appealability.”
“Defendant Turner's Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 (Doc. # 309) is hereby DENIED WITH PREJUDICE”
“Defendant Barnett's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence [DE 211], is GRANTED”
“Defendant Barnett's Motion to Vacate [DE 208] is DENIED AS MOOT”
“The defendants' motion for summary judgment [Record No. 158] is GRANTED.”
“the Court ADOPTS DE 20, GRANTS DE 16, DISMISSES DE 1 WITH PREJUDICE, and DENIES a certificate of appealability”
“Gribben's Motion to Suppress and to Dismiss Charges, [R. 15], is DENIED”
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 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Stinnett: 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 Stinnett with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Stinnett, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Stinnett's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace