Raymond S. Kent
How Judge Kent rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kent
Raymond S. Kent became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Michigan in August 2015. He previously served as the district’s federal public defender and earned his law degree from Wayne State University Law School.
Judge Kent's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Kent'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).
How Judge Kent decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rayos v. Smith, Kent recommended summary judgment for a deputy warden on a failure-to-protect claim because employment records showed she did not work at the prison when the attack occurred.
“plaintiff cannot show that defendant Huss was deliberately indifferent for failing to protect him from the attack at MBP on December 14, 2014, because Huss did not work at that correctional facility.”
In Strong v. Unknown Sandborn, Kent recommended summary judgment on exhaustion grounds because the prisoner’s only grievance pursued through Step III was received two days before the alleged incidents began.
“The only grievance which plaintiff pursued through Step III, Grievance ICF-22-12-1419-28B, was received by the MDOC on December 13, 2022, two days before the alleged series of incidents began on December 15, 2022.”
Procedural preferences
In Hardy v. Lansing Police Department, Kent struck the plaintiff’s declaration after finding that he had failed to file the responsive brief required by Local Rule 7.3(c); the district judge affirmed that procedural order.
“the magistrate judge found that Hardy failed to follow Local Rule 7.3(c) which requires parties opposing a nondispositive motion to 'file a responsive brief and supporting materials.'”
In a habeas case involving Smith, Kent recommended dismissal as untimely because the petition was filed after the one-year deadline and did not argue a basis for equitable tolling, as recounted in a later order.
“Magistrate Judge Kent found that Plaintiff had one year from March 30, 2014 in which to file his habeas application... Magistrate Judge Kent further noted that Plaintiff failed to argue any basis for equitable tolling in his habeas petition.”
Cautions
In Slates v. Corrigan, Kent dismissed a mixed habeas petition for failure to exhaust and denied a stay because the petitioner had more than sixty days remaining in the limitations period.
“Petitioner has more than sixty days remaining in his limitations period... a stay of these proceedings is not warranted and the Court will dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust available state-court remedies.”
In Loren, Kent granted two defense summary-judgment motions on the remaining prisoner claims after finding the plaintiff had not properly exhausted the grievance process before filing suit.
“Accordingly, the Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether Plaintiff properly exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit. He did not; Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“I respectfully recommend that defendant's motion to dismiss (docket no. 5) be GRANTED and that this matter be DISMISSED.”
“the service of process issue is moot if the Court adopts the recommendation to dismiss this action as set forth in Section II, supra.”
“I respectfully recommend that defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) be GRANTED and that this case be TERMINATED.”
“I respectfully recommend that defendant Huss' second motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 243) be GRANTED and that this action be TERMINATED.”
“I respectfully recommend that defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) be GRANTED ... and that this action be terminated.”
“plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 24) be DENIED”
“I respectfully recommend that defendant Sanborn's motion for summary judgment on the basis of exhaustion (ECF No. 23) be GRANTED and that this case be terminated.”
“the Court will dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust available state-court remedies.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to stay these proceedings and hold them in abeyance (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.”
“the Court will overrule Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 222) and adopt the R&R (ECF No. 216) as the opinion of the Court. The Court will grant PennyMac's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 82) for the reasons stated in the R&R as well as in this Opinion.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bank of New York Mellon's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to strike the affidavit of Kathryn Corbett (ECF No. 124) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Reid's habeas corpus petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 107) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's due process claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff's First Amendment claims may proceed.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 103) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all Defendants (ECF No. 157) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clinton County's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 118) is GRANTED, and the claims against the Clinton County Defendant's are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Kent's directly-assigned caseload spans consent Social Security disability appeals (28 U.S.C. 636(c)), prisoner civil-rights and habeas corpus cases, and general civil matters including employment, ADA, and contract disputes.
- Several of his older Social Security appeals carry a Fair Labor Standards Act, ADA, or contract case alongside them in the same filing window, reflecting a general civil docket in addition to his prisoner and Social Security referral lanes.
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 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 Western District of Michigan, not for Judge Kent: 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 | 1,042 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 107 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 714 | 6.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 217 | 14.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,042 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 906 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 847 | 6.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,033 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,081 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 844 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 893 | 7.8 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 Kent with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kent, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kent's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace