Beth P. Gesner
How Judge Gesner rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gesner
Beth P. Gesner joined the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland as a magistrate judge in 1999 and became chief magistrate judge in 2017. Before the bench, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. Since retiring from full-time service in 2023, she has continued to sit on recall.
Judge Gesner's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Gesner'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).
- Order 2026-05: Redacted Filings in FRCP 5.2(c) Cases ↗
- Order 2026-03: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Order 2025-05: Procedures for the Filing of Sealed Documents ↗
- Amended Order 2021-13: Removal Actions ↗
- Amended Order 2022-04: Social Security Cases ↗
- Second Amended Order 2021-02: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Order 2020-01: Discovery in Criminal Cases ↗
- Order 2018-07: Amicus Briefs ↗
- Order 2018-08: Service of Rule 68 Offers of Judgment ↗
- Second Amended Order 2025-01: Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus—Alien Detainee ↗
- Order 2024-01: Deficiency Notices ↗
How Judge Gesner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Schrof v. Clean Earth, Gesner allowed a sex-discrimination claim to proceed at the pleading stage because the complaint identified proposed comparators and plausibly alleged different treatment.
“At this stage of the proceedings, and in light of the relaxed requirements for MFEPA claims, plaintiff states a plausible claim of sex discrimination in violation of the MFEPA.”
In Melinda S. v. Kijakazi, Gesner reversed and remanded a Social Security denial because the administrative law judge inadequately assessed fibromyalgia symptoms.
“Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis. The case is REMANDED for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.”
Cautions
In EFL Global LLC v. Under Armour, Inc., she denied a motion to dismiss claims over later freight-storage charges because the parties' settlement release covered claims only through its effective date and did not release future claims.
“The plain language of the Agreement does not include a release of any future claims.”
In International Painters Pension Fund v. I. Losch, she denied the defendants' motion to alter or amend judgment because they identified no clear legal error and instead sought to relitigate the court's conclusion.
“Defendants have not identified any clear legal error in the court's judgment. Rather, defendants merely disagree with the conclusion the court reached and ask the court to change its mind... defendants' Motion is denied.”
In Myers v. Town of Elkton, Gesner denied the defendants' alternative summary-judgment requests without prejudice because material facts remained disputed at that stage.
“Given that material facts remain in dispute, summary judgment in favor of defendants would be inappropriate in this case... Defendant Officers' and defendant Town's Motions for summary Judgment are denied without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“AutoNation is not a proper defendant and the court grants plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss defendant AutoNation (ECF No. 37).”
“Because no plaintiff has the same citizenship as any defendant, complete diversity exists and the court may exercise diversity jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 38) is denied.”
“there is no good cause justification for plaintiff's more than two-year delay in serving defendants... defendants have been substantially prejudiced by plaintiff's delay in effecting service. Accordingly, the court grants defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34).”
“plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED. Heather Myers, Personal Representative of the Estate of James Myers, shall be substituted as the proper party for James Myers, decedent.”
“Defendant Officers' Motion (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As to Officer Lasassa, Counts V through X are dismissed, and Officer Lasassa is dismissed from this case. As to Officer Saulsbury, Counts VIII, IX, and X are dismissed. As to Officer Devine, Count II is dismissed.”
“Defendant Town's Motion (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, defendant Town's Motion is granted as to Counts I, II, IV, V, VII, VIII, and IX.”
“Given that material facts remain in dispute, summary judgment in favor of defendants would be inappropriate in this case... Defendant Officers' and defendant Town's Motions for summary Judgment are denied without prejudice.”
“Defendants have not identified any clear legal error in the court's judgment. Rather, defendants merely disagree with the conclusion the court reached and ask the court to change its mind... defendants' Motion is denied.”
“Defendants have demonstrated that specific material facts exist regarding their scienter and whether they purposefully intended to defraud plaintiffs... plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 82) is DENIED.”
“Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis. The case is REMANDED for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.”
“Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis. The case is REMANDED for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED, plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) is DENIED, and plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED.”
“defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted with respect to plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim (Count IV) and denied with respect to plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim (Count I), wage discrimination claim (Count II), and retaliation claim (Count III).”
“For the reasons set forth above, defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 720 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 259 days (N = 1).
With the parties' consent, Gesner presided over the full course of Social Security appeals, civil-rights actions, pension-fund collections, fraud claims, and tort and diversity cases, issuing final appealable judgments. The reviewed consent cases were selected by case name rather than through a randomized caseload sample.
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 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 District of Maryland, not for Judge Gesner: 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 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 151 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,564 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 457 | 13.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 19 | 33.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,119 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,370 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,053 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,629 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,469 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,709 | 7.9 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 Gesner with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gesner, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gesner's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace