Timothy S. Hogan

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio magistrate Retired 2010 · served 1996–2010 17 signed orders read

Judge Hogan no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

J & J Productions, Inc. v. Schmalz
· 2010-09-17
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 62) be DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) be GRANTED and Counts I and II of Plaintiffs Complaint be DISMISSED.”

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 212 v. American Laundry Machinery, Inc.
· 2009-11-23
Motion for protective order (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant Martin’s Motion for a Protective Order is granted in part and denied in part as discussed above.”

Varghese v. Royal Maccabees Life Insurance
· 1998-01-27
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“The Court revisits its prior ruling for the purpose of clarification only.”

WMA Securities, Inc. v. Wynn
· 1999-12-17
Motion for protective order (defendants) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order is granted in its entirety.”

Gadberry v. Bethesda, Inc.
· 2008-10-14
Motions to dismiss (employee benefit plan) Denied

“The motion to dismiss of Bethesda, Inc. (an Employee Long-Term Disability Plan) be DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (plan administrators) Granted

“The motion to dismiss of Bethesda, Inc. (Plan Administrator), Trihealth, Inc. Long-Term Disability Benefit (An Employee Long Term Disability Plan) and TriHealth, Inc. (Plan Administrator) (Doc. 11) be GRANTED.”

Saint Torrance v. Firstar
· 2007-10-19
Motions to dismiss (U.S. Bank) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) be GRANTED and Plaintiffs Complaint as it pertains to Defendant U.S. Bank be DISMISSED.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 16) be DENIED.”

Summary judgment (Helvey & Associates) Granted

“Defendant Helvey & Associates’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) be GRANTED and Plaintiffs Complaint be DISMISSED as against Defendant Helvey & Associates.”

Judgment on the pleadings (City of Cincinnati) Granted

“The City of Cincinnati’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 25) be GRANTED.”

Ob'Saint v. Warden, Toledo Correctional Institution
· 2009-12-21
Petition for writ of habeas corpus (petitioner) Denied

“Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) should be DENIED with prejudice.”

Summary judgment (petitioner) Denied

“Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED.”

Mlay v. Internal Revenue Service
· 2001-02-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s summary judgment motion be DENIED.”

Motion to expedite (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs Motion to Expedite Case (doc. no. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Holler v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance
· 2010-08-27
Judgment on the pleadings (plaintiff) Granted

“For all these reasons IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT: Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings be GRANTED and judgment be entered in her favor on her ERISA claim.”

Anderson v. County of Hamilton
· 2010-06-18
Judgment on the pleadings (county defendants) Granted

“The motion for judgment on the pleadings of defendants Hamilton County, Kathy Elfers, Rachael Curran, Joyce Harmon, Fritz Meyer, and Louis F. Strigari (Doc. 40) be GRANTED.”

Cobb v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
· 2011-01-15
Petition for writ of habeas corpus (petitioner) Denied

“Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 2) be DENIED with prejudice.”

Mays v. Buckeye Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
· 2000-01-06
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs ECOA and due process claims”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 404.5 days (N = 6).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 2 days (N = 1).

The randomized late-service sample includes consumer-credit, employment, trademark, insurance, and motor-vehicle matters. All six sampled cases were terminated.

A historical record

Judge Hogan no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.