H. Brent Brennenstuhl
How Judge Brennenstuhl rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brennenstuhl
H. Brent Brennenstuhl has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Kentucky since May 2012, based in Bowling Green. Before joining the bench, he practiced law in Bowling Green. His judicial work includes civil cases decided by consent and matters referred by district judges.
Judge Brennenstuhl's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Brennenstuhl'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).
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the undersigned recommends that Defendant's motion to suppress (DN 28) be DENIED.”
“a plain procedural bar is present in this case, and reasonable jurists would not find it debatable whether Overholt’s petition is time-barred. ... The Magistrate Judge’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation (DN 13) are ADOPTED as and for the opinion of this Court; ... Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Relief (DN 1) is DISMISSED;”
“The Court accepts the Magistrate's Judge recommendation and adopts, as its own, his succinct explanation for it ... The inconsistencies between the Plaintiff's subjective presentation of her symptoms and the objective medical evidence provided substantial evidence to deny Plaintiff's claim.”
“WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's motion (DN 95) is DENIED.”
“Given that the Court finds good cause for the delay, an award of attorney's fees is unjustified.”
“The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl (D.N. 174) are ADOPTED in full and INCORPORATED by reference herein.”
“The Recommendation (D.N. 26) is ADOPTED to the extent that it recommends dismissal as a sanction for Carter's conduct and OVERRULED as to dismissal with prejudice ... This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Judge Brennenstuhl's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation (D.N. 25) are ADOPTED in full and INCORPORATED by reference herein. The defendants' motion for summary judgment (D.N. 18) is GRANTED.”
“Based on a de novo review of the decision below, therefore, the Court agrees with Judge Brennenstuhl that no 'condition or combination of conditions ... will reasonably assure' the safety of other people and the community if Mitchem were released ... the Court denies Mitchem's motion to revoke his pretrial detention.”
“The Court overrules Carter's objections (DN 40) and adopts the report and recommendation (DN 39). The Court therefore dismisses the case with prejudice under FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) and strikes it from the active docket.”
“the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is DENIED insofar as it asserts tort claims but is otherwise GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
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 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Western District of Kentucky, not for Judge Brennenstuhl: 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 | 931 | 7.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 121 | 3.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 790 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 17 | 27.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 931 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 966 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 835 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,130 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,065 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,184 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,111 | 8.6 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 Brennenstuhl with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brennenstuhl, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brennenstuhl's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace