James Gray Carr

How Judge Carr rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Carr no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Position
District judge
Status
No longer serving
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
May 9, 1994
Education
Kenyon College, B.A. (1962); Harvard Law School, LL.B. (1969)
Signed orders read
24

About Judge Carr

James G. Carr joined the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in May 1994 after appointment by President William J. Clinton. He assumed senior status in June 2010. He elected inactive status effective July 1, 2025, when the court reassigned the remaining cases on his docket.

Signed rulings

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

Korzec v. GEM, Inc.
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Local 50's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) and defendant GEM's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21) be, and the same hereby are granted.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“defendant GEM's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21) be, and the same hereby are granted.”

Board of Trustees of the Toledo Area Sheet Metal Workers Pension Plan v. Karpathia Funding Group
Default judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff's Motion for default judgment is denied as moot”

Motion for judgment on pleadings (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion in the alternative for judgment on the pleadings is denied without prejudice.”

Luckey Farmers, Inc. v. Vergote
Motion to alter amend judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 32) be, and the same hereby is, denied.”

Bonilla Mesa v. Merlak
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) be, and the same hereby is, granted, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be, and the same hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.”

Rayford v. Amazon.com Services, LLC
3:24-cv-02195-JGC · 2025-03-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Amazon's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and I dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.”

Shawver v. Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc.
3:24-cv-00454-JGC · 2025-04-21
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motion to dismiss, (Doc. 16), be, and the same hereby is, granted; and 2. Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice.”

Johnson-Romaker v. Kroger Limited Partnership One
3:07-cv-03271-JGC · 2009-03-04
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED THAT defendant Kroger's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 24] be, and the same hereby is granted.”

United States v. Taylor
3:21-cr-00727-JGC · 2023-04-10
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED THAT the Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. 22) be, and the same hereby is denied.”

United States v. Cook
3:10-cr-00522-JGC · 2011-07-11
Motion to suppress (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED THAT the defendant's motion to suppress and motion in limine [Doc. 25] be, and the same hereby is granted in part and denied in part.”

Bockrath v. General Motors
3:07-cv-00784-JGC · 2007-07-20
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED THAT plaintiff's motion for remand be, and the same hereby is denied.”

Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. v. Toledo Tool and Die Company, Inc.
3:07-cv-03660-JGC · 2008-09-30
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“ORDERED THAT defendant Toledo Tool's motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. 11] be, and the same hereby is granted as to Faurecia Automotive Seating's claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel.”

BMO Bank, N.A. v. Gym Supply Warehouse, LLC
3:24-cv-01632-JGC · 2025-01-04
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 8) is granted; 2. The default of all Defendants be, and the same hereby is, entered.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 378.5 days (N = 16).

  • The reviewed 2018 Toledo filings show a broad docket that included Social Security appeals, habeas petitions, federal criminal cases and civil forfeiture, employment and disability-discrimination claims, family and medical leave disputes, labor-management litigation, insurance, product-liability and automobile cases, admiralty, immigration mandamus, and federal labor enforcement.
  • In these sampled matters, Judge Carr either issued the ruling himself or acted on a magistrate judge's recommendation.

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 months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years0
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 202600
Sep 202500
Mar 202511
Sep 202403
Mar 202404
Sep 202334
Mar 20231311
Sep 2022712
Mar 2022210
Sep 202128
Mar 202166
Sep 202085

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.

A historical record

Judge Carr no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.