Charles D. Austin
How Judge Austin rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Austin
Charles D. Austin joined the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland as a magistrate judge in October 2023. He previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Maryland and a trial attorney in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, after clerking in the Eastern District of Virginia and the Fourth Circuit.
Judge Austin's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Austin'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 Austin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Palmer v. State of Maryland, Austin certified a class in a delayed-release suit after finding the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) met.
“At this juncture, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the requirements for class certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).”
In Williams v. Howard County, Austin allowed the police officers’ FLSA claim to proceed because the county’s executive-exemption defense was not established by the face of the complaint.
“Thus, despite Defendant’s emphasis that an exemption’s applicability is a legal, rather than factual, question, the Court considers only the face of the complaint to determine whether Plaintiffs fall into the exempted category of employees.”
Procedural preferences
In Palmer v. State of Maryland, Austin removed proposed subclass A from the class definitions because individualized circumstances could overwhelm questions suitable for classwide proof.
“the Court exercises its discretion to modify the proposed class definitions to eliminate subclass A, to account for the impact of individualized considerations overwhelming those questions properly susceptible to class treatment.”
Cautions
In Natarsha A.’s Social Security appeal, Austin remanded for an ALJ explanation of the lupus listing and left the disability determination to the agency.
“But the ALJ—not the Court— must make this determination in the first instance and provide the proper explanation for doing so.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS UNUM's Partial Motion to Dismiss Count II for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Count II is dismissed without prejudice.”
“the SSA's judgment is AFFIRMED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.”
“pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the SSA's judgment is REVERSED and REMANDED.”
“the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Remand, ECF 12, is GRANTED. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1377 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 24 days (N = 2).
Austin's sampled work includes criminal-duty matters and recently filed consent civil cases, many of which remained pending. His decided consent cases include Social Security appeals, employee-benefits litigation, and employment and wage disputes, including a case tried to a jury.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 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 Austin: 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 Austin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Austin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Austin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace