Solomon Oliver Jr.
How Judge Oliver rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Oliver
Solomon Oliver, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Oliver received a commission on May 9, 1994. Judge Oliver assumed senior status on February 15, 2021.
Judge Oliver's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Oliver, 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 ↗
- Case Management Conference Plan ↗
- Civil Trial Order ↗
- Criminal Pretrial Order ↗
Key rules
Conferences
The parties' planning meeting report must be jointly signed and filed at least three days before the case management conference.
“A report of this planning meeting shall be jointly signed and submitted to the Clerk for filing not less than 3 days before the CMC.”
Trial
Trial briefs must be filed and served at least seven days before trial.
“The court requires the preparation of trial briefs in each case, which must be filed with the court and served on every other counsel in the case no later than seven (7) days before trial.”
Trial
Trial stipulations of uncontested facts are due at least three days before trial.
“Stipulations are to be filed with the court no later than three (3) days prior to trial.”
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 Oliver decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Chemical Solvents, Inc. v. Greenwich Insurance Company, Oliver granted the insurer summary judgment on the bad-faith claim because the insured conceded the conditions of the Ohio Supreme Court's Marginian rule were met.
“Marginian plainly bars Chemical Solvents’ bad-faith claim.”
In the reviewed preliminary injunction decision, the court read the voter-registration statute to require an offer when a driver’s license application is submitted, rather than after the license application succeeds. That interpretation supported interim relief against the challenged proof-of-citizenship requirement.
“States must offer voter registration to driver’s license applicants when they submit their applications for the BMV’s consideration, not upon the BMV’s approval.”
Procedural preferences
In Reo v. Lindstedt, Oliver treated the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss counterclaims as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. He granted it on several counterclaims and denied it on the defamation claim.
“Considered as such, the court will grant the Motion (ECF No. 94) in part and deny it in part.”
Cautions
In A.W. v. Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District, Oliver enforced the signed settlement agreement despite the plaintiff's later change of mind and dismissed the suit with prejudice.
“That Ms. Willis changed her mind after participating in the mediation and signing the formal settlement agreement does not excuse her from complying with it.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court grants Greenwich's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 93)”
“grants Illinois National's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 96 and 97)”
“denies Chemical Solvents's Motion for Relief Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) (ECF No. 99).”
“the court grants Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 28.) ... this case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“the court will grant the Motion (ECF No. 94) in part and deny it in part. Specifically, the court grants the Motion with respect to the malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims ... However, the court denies the Motion with respect to the defamation per se claim against Bryan and Stefani.”
“the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) as moot.”
Pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against a state Common Pleas judge. IFP granted, complaint dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e): 'Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed on the basis of Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e).' Because there was no party motion, this is excluded from the motion counts. Pattern: applies absolute judicial immunity / Eleventh Amendment bar at the screening stage.
Pro se respondeat-superior suit against the United States for a prior adverse Title VII summary judgment by Judge Gwin. Dismissed sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: 'this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction' (sovereign immunity not waived for a Bivens/respondeat-superior theory; res judicata). Plaintiff's Motion for ECF access (Doc. 3) denied as moot (trivial; not graded). Because there was no dispositive party motion, this is excluded from the motion counts.
“his single claim for relief fails, and his § 2241 Petition must be dismissed”
“and remands the matter. On remand, the ALJ is instructed to reconsider”
“finding that all grounds for relief have been procedurally defaulted”
“even on de novo review, the Petition must be denied”
“the court adopts the R&R, and denies the Motion”
Sua sponte screening dismissal of a pro se in forma pauperis civil action alleging cancellation of medical procedures. After granting IFP status, the court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to identify any federal claim: 'the Court dismisses this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e).' No motion was filed.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 266 days (N = 11).
Samples from 2019 and 2024 show a broad civil and criminal docket, including prisoner and other civil-rights actions, insurance, patent, consumer-credit, Social Security, public-records, employment, accessibility, wage-and-hour, trademark, arbitration, habeas, and contract matters. Some Social Security, contract, and other pretrial work was referred to magistrate judges.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 Northern District of Ohio, not for Judge Oliver: 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 Oliver with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Oliver, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Oliver's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace