Thomas Michael Rose
How Judge Rose rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rose
Thomas M. Rose is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Rose received a commission on May 10, 2002. Judge Rose assumed senior status on June 30, 2017.
Judge Rose's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Rose'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 Rose decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Carpenter v. Liberty Insurance, he granted the insurer's partial summary judgment motion on counts II and III.
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Counts II and III, ECF 72, is GRANTED.”
In review of an agency medical-privileging decision, he denied the physician's competing merits requests and granted judgment on the administrative record to the agency.
“the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Doc. No. 97).”
Procedural preferences
In Murphy v. Kettering Adventist Healthcare, he stayed briefing and consideration of court-facilitated notice until he ruled on the pending motion to dismiss.
“the Court finds it most prudent to stay briefing and consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Court-Facilitated Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs until after the Court has ruled on the Motion to Dismiss”
In Thomas & Marker Construction v. Wal-Mart, he denied Wal-Mart's motion to bifurcate liability and damages.
“Wal-Mart's Motion To Bifurcate the Liability and Damages Proceedings (doc. #131) is OVERRULED.”
In Medical Protective Co. v. Gronbeck, he granted in part and denied in part a motion seeking interlocutory certification and a stay of proceedings.
“GRANTS, IN PART, and DENIES, IN PART, MedPro’s Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and for Stay of Proceedings (Doc. No. 93)”
An opposition exceeding twenty pages required a separate request for leave; the court struck a thirty-page filing without a table of contents and allowed refiling.
“If Plaintiff wishes to argue in excess of twenty pages, he shall separately move the Court for leave to do so.”
Cautions
In Easterling v. TJK-ELS West End, he granted the defendant's amended motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
“Defendant's Amended Motion To Dismiss (ECF 14) is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF 1-1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Wal-Mart's Motion To Bifurcate the Liability and Damages Proceedings (doc. #131) is OVERRULED.”
“the Court DENIES the Motion to Remand (Doc. 5) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) as moot.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave”
“Defendant's Amended Motion To Dismiss (ECF 14) is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF 1-1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF 2) is DENIED”
“Plaintiff Dean Gillispie's Civ. R. 21 Motion to Dismiss Defendants Thomas Angel, Steven Gray, and John DiPietro (Doc. 243) is GRANTED and all counts against Defendants Thomas Angel, Steven Gray, and John DiPietro are DISMISSED with prejudice”
“The Joint Motion of Defendants Miami Township, Ohio and Matthew Scott Moore to Strike Stipulations of Dismissal ... (Doc. 190) is DENIED as moot”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF 49, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Partial Summary Judgment, ECF 70, and Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 83, are DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Counts II and III, ECF 72, is GRANTED.”
“the Court finds it most prudent to stay briefing and consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Court-Facilitated Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs until after the Court has ruled on the Motion to Dismiss”
“the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29) in all respects. Call’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED.”
“the Court GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20).”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 6.) Because any amendment would be futile, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.”
“Because any amendment would be futile, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (Docs. 9, 10.)”
“the Court GRANTS, IN PART, and DENIES, IN PART, the District’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20). Specifically, the Court DENIES the District’s Motion on Proffitt’s claim for FMLA interference. However, the Court GRANTS the District’s Motion with respect to Proffitt’s claims for disability discrimination”
“The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED”
“Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 2023 Dayton sample includes federal criminal matters, removed personal-injury, motor-vehicle, and insurance disputes, an FTC Act action, an immigration mandamus case, and state-prisoner habeas matters. It is an illustrative caseload sample rather than a random selection.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 9 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 8 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 3 |
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 Rose: 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 Rose with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rose, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rose's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace