George Levi Russell III

United States District Court for the District of Maryland district Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 25 signed orders read

Signed rulings

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

Young v. City of Baltimore
1:16-cv-01321 · 2017-02-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“City of Baltimore's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“City of Baltimore's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreply (ECG No. 18) is GRANTED.”

Motion to appoint counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“Young's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No 12) is DENIED.”

Howe v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
1:24-cv-00653 · 2025-01-15
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Howe's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED.”

Doe v. Community College of Baltimore County
1:19-cv-02575 · 2021-04-15
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“Doe's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 28) is DENIED.”

McCoy v. Target Corporation
1:14-cv-03437 · 2016-03-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Target's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”

Rosero v. Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.
1:21-cv-00588 · 2023-09-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of JMT.”

Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff John C. Rosero's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 48) is DENIED.”

Giddings v. Commissioner of MD Prisons
1:23-cv-00379-GLR · 2023-12-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13), construed as a motion to dismiss, and Motion to Seal (ECF No. 15) are granted. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, with the exception of Giddings' state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.”

Kipke v. Moore
1:23-cv-01293-GLR · 2024-08-02
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs' Motions, (ECF Nos. 13, 18), will be granted as to the claims regarding the private building consent rule and carrying near public demonstrations or in locations selling alcohol for onsite-consumption, and the Motions will be denied in all other respects.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“State Defendants' Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, (ECF Nos. 21, 23), will be granted as to the Kipke Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims (Counts III and IV of the Kipke Complaint), as well as the claims regarding: State Parks; mass transit facilities; schools and school grounds; museums; stadiums; healthcare facilities; government buildings; amusement parks; racetracks; and casinos. The Cross Motions for Summary Judgment will otherwise be denied.”

International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund v. The Apostolos Group, Inc.
1:23-cv-00440-GLR · 2024-03-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the claims against the Individual Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice”

Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“To the extent that Plaintiffs assert injunctive relief as a separate cause of action, Thomarios' Motion to Dismiss is granted, and that count is dismissed.”

Porter v. Martin
1:15-cv-03546-GLR · 2016-01-19
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) is DENIED, and his Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.”

Goffe v. Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation
1:15-cv-00695-GLR · 2016-02-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“JHHSC's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED.”

Shiheed v. Boboe
1:17-cv-01595-GLR · 2018-09-14
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Jones v. Smith
1:18-cv-01833-GLR · 2019-03-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court will grant WCI Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) and dismiss Jones's Complaint without prejudice.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 228.0 days (N = 10).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 251.0 days (N = 2).

A sample of cases filed in 2021 (plus the McCoy/Rosero dockets read in detail) shows a broad civil and collateral-criminal mix: employment civil-rights (Title VII / Civil Rights: Jobs), 28 U.S.C. 2255 motions to vacate (Cottman, Kearney, Kenner II), FLSA (Marin Marchan v. Pro Lawn), consumer/contract (Coleman v. Synchrony/Nissan), prisoner civil-rights/medical-negligence (Howe v. Wexford), premises-liability personal injury (McCoy v. Target), and municipal 1983 (Young v. City of Baltimore). Sits in the Northern Division (Baltimore).

Put Judge Russell's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Russell actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Russell's own signed orders and cites them.