Richard D. Bennett
How Judge Bennett rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bennett
Richard D. Bennett is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Bennett received a commission on April 10, 2003. Judge Bennett assumed senior status on June 30, 2021.
Judge Bennett's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Bennett'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 Bennett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Baltimore County pension litigation, Bennett treated the agency's long delay and the resulting exposure to taxpayers and plan participants as central to denying retrospective monetary relief.
“The EEOC’s eight-year delay in prosecuting this case and its present position on the issue of damages are more than ‘troubl[ing]’ and are in fact untenable.”
Procedural preferences
In Hankins, Bennett remanded on comity and abstention grounds but declined sanctions because federal jurisdiction required substantial briefing and a hearing rather than presenting an obvious defect.
“In this case, the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction demanded several pleadings, the review of a large number of legal precedent and a motions hearing.”
In Billinger v. Min, he declined to dismiss claims against a detective on qualified-immunity grounds because entitlement to that defense was not clear from the face of the complaint.
“At this early stage, therefore, Det. Min has not shown that it is clear on the face of the Complaint that he is entitled to qualified immunity.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Counts One, Two, and Three, and DENIED with respect to Count Four.”
“Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.”
“For these reasons, the Motion will be denied without prejudice by separate Order.”
“Accordingly, the EEOC’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 215) is now MOOT.”
“the EEOC’s Motion for Determination on Availability of Retroactive and Prospective Monetary Relief (ECF No. 241) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the County’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 245) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the County’s Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint (ECF No. 221) is now MOOT.”
“Defendant Levering’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 5) and Defendant Hartman’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 22) are GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff Xerox Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.”
“Motion to Dismiss of the Defendants (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that this Dismissal be WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) is DENIED”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants, having properly raised the exhaustion defense, are entitled to summary judgment in their favor”
“Motion for Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 141) filed by Redner’s is GRANTED.”
“Defendant RI Hispanic’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Lee N. Koehler’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31) and Plaintiff Brian G. West’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) are both DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 291 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 55 days (N = 18).
The original thirteen reviewed matters include habeas and mandamus petitions, consumer credit, franchise contract, personal injury, insurance, and telephone-solicitation claims. Eleven additional January 2025 civil matters were reviewed for case dates and docket outcomes. Across the twenty-four selected cases, thirteen were terminated and eleven remained pending.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Bennett: 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 Bennett with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bennett, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bennett's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace