Chelsey M. Vascura
How Judge Vascura rules, drawn from 52 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Vascura
Chelsey M. Vascura is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Ohio in Columbus. She was appointed on July 1, 2017, and earned degrees from Bethany College and the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.
Judge Vascura's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Vascura'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).
- 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 Vascura decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
For discovery disputes, confer by simultaneous communication and seek the required informal court conference before moving to compel or requesting sanctions. In Walston, omission of both steps led to denial without prejudice.
“Plaintiff’s Motion does not reflect that she has conferred with Defendant via simultaneous means (such as in-person, telephone, or video conference) prior to filing her Motion, which is the Court’s strong preference.”
Explain diligence when seeking amendment after a scheduling deadline. In Robinson, unexplained delay led to denial under Rule 16; the next day a timely first request for a modest deposition extension was granted because the amendment decision affected deposition scope.
“Plaintiff’s Motion offers no facts on which the Court could rely to conclude that Plaintiff could not have sought leave to amend his Complaint— with facts and legal theories that were available to Plaintiff from the outset of the case—before the amendments deadline.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“REMAND this matter pursuant to Sentence 4”
“Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED”
“Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33) is DENIED”
“RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITH”
“DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to”
“It is further RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion for Injunction and Motion to Compel and/or Contempt (ECF Nos. 3, 5) be DENIED AS MOOT.”
Initial statutory screening of an amended pro se civil-rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Grounding quote: recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed 'for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2).'
Statutory screening of a pro se Fair Credit Reporting Act complaint. Grounding quote: 'Plaintiff MAY PROCEED on Count II of her Amended' complaint for failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, while the remaining claims were recommended for dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Statutory screening of a pro se § 1983 complaint alleging deprivation of parental rights. Grounding quote: 'Plaintiff MAY PROCEED on his individual-capacity Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims' against certain defendants, while the remaining claims were recommended for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2).
Granted leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and electronic-filing privileges, then on statutory screening of a pro se § 1983 complaint recommended dismissal because the plaintiff failed to plead municipal liability against the only named defendant. Grounding quote: recommended dismissal 'for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.'
Procedural default recommendation. After a corporate defendant failed to retain replacement counsel within the time ordered, the recommendation was to direct entry of default under Rule 55(a), since an artificial entity cannot proceed without an attorney. Grounding quote: 'DIRECT the Clerk to enter default against GGF, Inc., under' Rule 55(a).
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
A 2025-2026 sample of Judge Vascura's directly assigned work is dominated by Social Security appeals and criminal-duty search- and tracking-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 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, not for Judge Vascura: 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 Vascura with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Vascura, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Vascura's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace