Jeremy Daniel Kernodle
How Judge Kernodle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On a magistrate judge's report and recommendation his review standard tracks whether a party objected: he reviews de novo the portions to which a timely objection is made, and where no objection is filed he reviews the findings only for clear error or abuse of discretion and the legal conclusions for whether they are contrary to law. A party that disagrees with a recommendation must file specific written objections within the fourteen-day period to obtain de novo review.
“Here, Plaintiff has not filed objections. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law.”
He distinguishes the bases of a dismissal motion rather than ruling on it wholesale: in a removed prisoner suit he denied the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional challenge but granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissing the federal claims with prejudice on the merits and qualified immunity while remanding the surviving state-law claims. A defendant should brief jurisdiction and failure-to-state-a-claim as separate questions before him.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED. In all other respects, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED, with prejudice”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 32).”
“The Court GRANTS-in-part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 35), enters judgment for Plaintiffs on on Counts II and IV, and SETS ASIDE AND VACATES the 2024 Final Determination.”
“The Court GRANTS-in-part Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 39) and DISMISSES Counts I and III.”
“ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Docket No. 10), is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED. In all other respects, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
“DENIES Defendant Oputy's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 28) and Defendants Bradley, Wallace, and Lambo's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 27).”
“Frontier's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 140) is DENIED.”
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 70) and GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 72). Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Docket No. 29) be ADOPTED and that Dr. Shrode's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 23) be DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Paul W. Shrode's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 60) is GRANTED. The Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Shrode with prejudice.”
“The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants Rhonda Dears, William George, Robert Gutierrez, Shean Handrick, Sharon Littlefield, and Gerald Singleton and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against them without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant Turner's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 65), and the claims against Defendant Turner are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Michael Sizemore's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 45) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Michael Sizemore are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant Yitta's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 48) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's medical indifference claim against Defendant Yitta with prejudice.”
“the Court grants Plaintiff's motion and denies FinCEN's cross-motion”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 147 days (N = 11).
Kernodle's Tyler Division docket is weighted toward prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, along with consumer-protection, wage-and-hour, employment-discrimination, criminal, patent, administrative-law, and constitutional cases. Many prisoner matters are referred to magistrate judges.
Put Judge Kernodle's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Kernodle actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Kernodle's own signed orders and cites them.