Caroline Helen Gentry
How Judge Gentry rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Ohio in Dayton. She began serving in February 2022 and earned degrees from Kalamazoo College and Yale Law School. Before joining the bench, she clerked for District Judge Walter H. Rice and practiced civil litigation.
Judge Gentry's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gentry, 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.
Key rules
Trial
In civil consent cases, complete discovery six months before trial and file summary judgment motions five months before trial.
“Deadline for completion of all discovery: 6 months before trial 9. Deadline to file motions for summary judgment: 5 months before 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).
- General Order 24-02 In Re: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- U.S. District Court General Order No. 24-05 ↗
- General Order 23-03 In Re: Automatic Sealing and Procedures for Unsealing of Applications for Search Warrants, Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices, or Court Orders Under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). ↗
How Judge Gentry decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mirgon v. Commissioner of Social Security, she recommended reversing the benefits decision and remanding for further proceedings.
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (Doc. No. 9) be GRANTED; 2. The Court REVERSE the Commissioner's non-disability determination; ... 4. This matter be REMANDED to the Social Security Administration under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g)”
Procedural preferences
In Miller v. Parish, she recommended granting an unopposed summary-judgment motion after finding the plaintiff had not supplied evidence creating a genuine fact dispute.
“The undersigned Magistrate Judge therefore RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48) be GRANTED.”
In Harvey v. City of Troy, she recommended dismissal of a later-filed action duplicating an earlier case involving the same events and claims.
“The Court need not, and should not, expend judicial resources on both of these cases.”
Cautions
In Deanna B. v. Commissioner of Social Security, she recommended affirming the benefits decision after finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s analysis.
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (Doc. No. 9) be OVERRULED; 2. The Court AFFIRM the Commissioner's non-disability determination”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The undersigned Magistrate Judge therefore RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48) be GRANTED.”
“the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Judge GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, DISMISS Plaintiff's remaining access-to-courts claim”
“DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Subpoena AS MOOT, and TERMINATE this case.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this habeas corpus case for lack of jurisdiction. ... The Court should GRANT Defendants' motions to dismiss”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (Doc. No. 9) be GRANTED; 2. The Court REVERSE the Commissioner's non-disability determination; ... 4. This matter be REMANDED to the Social Security Administration under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g)”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (Doc. No. 9) be OVERRULED; 2. The Court AFFIRM the Commissioner's non-disability determination”
After comparing the plaintiff's two pending Section 1983 actions, Gentry concluded that the later case involved the same defendants, incident, relief, and overlapping claims as the narrowed amended complaint in the first case. Invoking the court's inherent authority to avoid duplicative federal litigation, she recommended dismissal of the second case and denial of leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Verbatim disposition: "The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS this second case, Case No. 3:26-cv-14 as DUPLICATIVE of Case No. 3:25-cv-428."
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant Hubner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38) be GRANTED in its entirety”
“DENY the motion for injunctive relief without prejudice (Doc. No. 2);”
“DENY the motion to stay and OVERRULE the objections as MOOT (Doc. No. 11).”
“The undersigned GRANTS Plaintiff’s third motion for extension of time. (Doc. No. 14.)”
“Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (Doc. No. 7) be GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff’s motions to modify the content or subject of his earlier complaint documents are DENIED as MOOT. (Doc No. 11, 18, 20.)”
“Defendant Pohlhaus’ ‘Motion for electronic filing Representing myself’ (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Berentz’ Motions for Electronic Filing Rights and To Receive Service Through the Electronic Case Filing System (Doc. Nos. 23, 24) are also DENIED.”
“Elflein’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas and for Protective Order (Doc. No. 57) is DENIED”
“Elflein’s Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. No. 98) is DENIED”
“Elflein’s Motion to Stay Proceedings and Discovery (Doc. No. 99) is DENIED”
“Elflein’s Motion for Interim Protective Order (Doc. No. 100) is DENIED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
A 2023-2026 sample of Judge Gentry's directly assigned work is dominated by Social Security appeals and criminal-duty search- and seizure-warrant matters. Her prisoner and other civil-rights merits work generally appears as recommendations in cases assigned to district judges. The sample is illustrative rather than a measured caseload distribution.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, not for Judge Gentry: 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 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,037 | 7.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 810 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 343 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,137 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,153 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,311 | 12.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,287 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,012 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,561 | 41.6 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 Gentry with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gentry, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gentry's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace