John Randell Adams Jr.
How Judge Adams rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Adams
John R. Adams is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Adams received a commission on February 12, 2003.
Judge Adams's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Adams, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Case Management Conference Scheduling Order ↗
- Case Management Plan ↗
- Order Scheduling Settlement Conference and Preparation Requirements ↗
- Social Security Scheduling Order ↗
- Subpoena Requirements ↗
- Trial Order - Civil ↗
- Trial Order - Criminal ↗
- Civil and Criminal Practices and Procedures ↗
Key rules
Motions
Requests for deadline extensions must be filed at least 14 days before the established deadline.
“All requests for extensions shall be filed no later than fourteen days prior to established deadlines.”
Conferences
Lead counsel, parties, and any insurer representative with settlement authority must attend the case management conference.
“Lead counsel, parties with full settlement authority, and a representative with full settlement authority of any Insurance Carrier must be present and have calendars available for scheduling.”
Conferences
A written request to excuse a party or lead counsel or to continue the case management conference must be filed at least 14 days before it.
“a written motion to excuse the presence of such person or to continue must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the CMC.”
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 Adams decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Dickson's ringless voicemail case, Adams found that the plaintiff's only alleged harm was the brief time spent reading a message he could not recall.
“Dickson's sole alleged harm appears to be the de minimus time he took to read the RVM, a time so limited that he did not even recall its contents.”
In J.M. Smucker Co. v. ACE American Insurance Co., Adams certified an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). He found a controlling legal question involving a matter of first impression in the Sixth Circuit and concluded that appeal would make efficient use of court and party resources.
“the facts and law presented by this matter compel the conclusion that an interlocutory appeal is both legally appropriate and the best use of both the Court's and the parties' resources.”
Procedural preferences
In Garnett v. Akron City School District Board of Education, Adams reviewed the defendants' unopposed summary-judgment motion against the arguments and evidence submitted, citing Guarino's instruction to examine such motions carefully without inventing arguments for a silent party. He granted the motion after finding the defendants entitled to judgment on the claims.
“The trial court must indeed intelligently and carefully review the legitimacy of such an unresponded-to motion, even as it refrains from actively pursuing advocacy or inventing the riposte for a silent party.”
In an order adopting an unobjected magistrate judge's report and recommendation, Adams declined further review because the plaintiff filed no objections and review would duplicate the earlier work.
“Plaintiff did not file objections to the R&R. Thus, any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court's limited resources.”
In the reviewed trademark case, the court found the venue factors relatively balanced and gave substantial weight to the plaintiff’s choice of a proper district, denying transfer to California.
“Because this District is a proper venue for suit, Smucker’s choice of venue is ultimately given substantial weight.”
Cautions
In Johnson v. Villard, Adams denied four post-judgment motions filed in a closed case. He found them at least untimely but also addressed each request, including reopening, changing venue, and amending the judgment, on its stated grounds.
“He filed these motions in a closed case. They are, therefore, at a minimum untimely. The Court will nevertheless address each motion separately for the sake of thoroughness.”
In Burlingame, Adams adopted the recommendation denying defendants’ sanctions motion because the movants had not complied with the safe-harbor requirement; the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal remained without prejudice.
“The motion for sanctions (Doc. 78) is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and their motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated below, the motion to certify an interlocutory appeal is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, the motion to stay the Court's scheduling order (Doc. 46) is GRANTED, and the motion to certify an interlocutory appeal (Doc. 39) is GRANTED.”
“ACE's relation motion to dismiss (Doc. 38) is denied without prejudice subject to refiling, if appropriate, following conclusion of the appeal.”
“Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion/Request for Leave to File Motion to Reopen for Relief from a Judgment and to Show Proof of Service (Doc. 68), his Motion/Request for Leave to Request for Notice of Appeal Forms and or Notice of Appeal Pro Se Packet and Docket Sheet (Doc. 69), his Motion/Request for Leave of Court for Change of Venue (Doc. 70), and his Motion/Request for Leave of Court to Amend Court’s Judgment Pursuant to Civil Rule 15(c) and Federal Rules of Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 71) are DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted. This Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision.”
“Accordingly, the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted. The decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, Cleveland Clinic’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED.”
“Further, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file supplemental discovery (doc. 122) is DENIED, and his remaining motions (doc. 126, 127) are DENIED as MOOT.”
“Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. This matter is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 7) is granted, and this action is dismissed.”
“Boja’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED, and this matter is STAYED pending arbitration.”
“The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 23) is DENIED.”
“TA’s Amended Motion for Expedited Discovery (Doc. 11) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s request for withdrawal of the reference as to Adversary Proceeding 25-06007 is GRANTED and that case is hereby transferred to the District Court for random assignment to a District Judge for final discovery and trial.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Abstention and Motion to Dismiss is hereby Denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The Akron caseload sample is criminal-heavy and includes a substantial group of 2026 alien-detainee habeas matters. The civil sample includes civil-rights, employment-discrimination, copyright, False Claims Act, and Social Security cases. Reassigned cases are included in caseload measures only when the recorded outcome was signed by Judge Adams.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 8 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 13 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 9 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 11 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 21 | 2 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, not for Judge Adams: 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 | 2,048 | 7.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 394 | 3.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,035 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 607 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 18 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,048 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,008 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,137 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,330 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,432 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,788 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,158 | 9.9 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 Adams with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Adams, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Adams's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace