Gina L. Simms
How Judge Simms rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Simms
Gina L. Simms joined the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland as a magistrate judge in November 2017. Before her appointment, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia and Maryland and practiced in white-collar defense and corporate compliance.
Judge Simms's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Simms'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 Simms decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On default-judgment referrals she analyzes each count separately rather than granting wholesale, recommending default judgment on the counts that are adequately pleaded while denying it on others (for example, an unjust-enrichment count barred where an express contract governs), and she caps damages under Rule 54(c) to the amount pleaded and independently scrutinizes requested attorney's-fee rates.
“In sum, I respectfully recommend that the Court: (1) GRANT Plaintiff's ‘Motion for Default Judgment’ (ECF No. 14) as to Counts I and II; (2) DENY Plaintiff's Motion as to Count III”
In a consent Social Security appeal, she remanded when the work restrictions adopted by the administrative law judge were stricter than those posed to the vocational expert, leaving the expert’s job testimony unable to support the denial.
“the ALJ’s hypotheticals to the VE were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s RFC”
Cautions
When dismissing for failure to prosecute or comply she calibrates the prejudice determination: she declines a with-prejudice dismissal unless the plaintiff first received an explicit, clear warning of that consequence, reserving the harshest sanction for egregious, repeated non-compliance.
“In sum, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ... this Court will not dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice because it has not provided her with an ‘explicit and clear warning of the consequences of failing to satisfy [this Court's orders].’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“I ultimately recommend that Plaintiffs' ‘Motion for Default Judgment’ be GRANTED, and that damages be awarded as set forth herein.”
“I recommend that the district court GRANT AND APPROVE the ‘Joint Motion to Approve FLSA Settlement’ (ECF No. 85), and GRANT the ‘Joint Motion to Withdraw Acceptances of Offers of Judgment’ (ECF No. 86).”
“I respectfully recommend that the Court GRANT the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 11), and enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant”
“I ultimately recommend that Plaintiffs' ‘Motion for Entry of Default Judgment’ be GRANTED, and that damages be awarded as set forth herein.”
“In sum, I respectfully recommend that the Court: (1) GRANT Plaintiff's ‘Motion for Default Judgment’ (ECF No. 14) as to Counts I and II; (2) DENY Plaintiff's Motion as to Count III”
“In sum, I respectfully recommend that the Court, GRANT Plaintiffs' ‘Motion for Default Judgment’ against the Defendant. (ECF No. 24).”
“In sum, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ... this Court will not dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice because it has not provided her with an ‘explicit and clear warning of the consequences of failing to satisfy [this Court's orders].’”
“In sum in light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 34, 37), and dismisses with prejudice all of Plaintiff's claims.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motions are GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The Motions are GRANTED with respect to the following, against all Defendants: (1) Count I; (2) Count II; (3) Count III; (4) Count IV; (5) Count V; (6) Count VI ...; (7) Count VII; (8) Count VIII; (9) Count IX; and (10) Count X”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion, (ECF No. 29), is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, both parties’ summary judgment motions, (ECF Nos. 11, 14), are DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion, (ECF No. 35), is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered in favor or Defendants, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 214 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 136 days (N = 2).
- Judge Simms's work includes consent civil and criminal-duty matters, ERISA and union benefit-fund collections, consumer and employment disputes, franchise contracts, and Social Security disability appeals.
- Her referral work includes ERISA and tax default judgments, FLSA collective settlements, and diversity contract cases.
- She also inherited consent cases involving wage settlements, diversity torts, products liability, and Fair Housing Act and ADA claims.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 District of Maryland, not for Judge Simms: 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 Simms with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Simms, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Simms's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace