Gina M. Groh
How Judge Groh rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Groh
Gina Marie Groh is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Groh received a commission on March 20, 2012.
Judge Groh's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Groh'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).
How Judge Groh decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In enforcing a contractual limitations period against an insured, the judge treated an unambiguous, undisputed filing-date-versus-loss-date calculation as dispositive rather than weighing the plaintiffs' equitable arguments about the clause's validity in any depth.
“It is similarly undisputed that the Plaintiffs initiated the instant case on April 27, 2023, over two years after the date of the fire.”
On a habeas exhaustion question, the judge looked past the magistrate's procedural framing to what the petitioner's direct appeal had actually presented to the state's highest court, rather than requiring a separate round of state collateral review as a formality.
“Since Petitioner appealed his conviction to the WVSCA which included the two grounds raised in support of his instant Petition, the Petition is fully exhausted and should be considered on its merits.”
In a prisoner civil rights case, the judge sustained an objection to dismissal for failure to exhaust because the prisoner did not bear the pleading burden, but still dismissed the complaint after reviewing the defendants’ separate failure-to-state-a-claim arguments.
“The Plaintiff correctly points out it is not his burden to plead or demonstrate that he exhausted his remedies.”
In a False Claims Act case involving capitated payments, the judge required evidence that the alleged billing defects affected the capitation rate before permitting the claim to survive summary judgment.
“Defendants aptly note that the Government has advanced no evidence that any of the alleged violations in this case influenced the capitation rate. The Court finds that is the relevant question for determining materiality in this case.”
Procedural preferences
In a diversity-jurisdiction dispute, she considered the record of an individual’s ties to Florida and found that the totality of circumstances established Florida citizenship.
“the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that she is a Florida citizen.”
Before granting an unopposed constitutional motion, the judge independently examined the issue because the parties’ agreement did not bind the court.
“Although the State filed a Response, it does not oppose the Church’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Nonetheless, the parties’ agreement to an issue or outcome does not necessarily bind this Court,”
Cautions
In a proposed veil-piercing amendment, she denied leave because the new allegations offered legal conclusions or mere possibilities rather than plausible facts.
“Plaintiff has attempted to allege only two factors to justify piercing the corporate veil, but Plaintiffs allegations are either legal conclusions or are merely possible rather than plausible.”
In a mistaken-identity arrest case, the court declined to resolve a deputy's immunity defense at the pleading stage while allowing the remaining civil-rights claims to proceed; it expressly left room for a later summary-judgment argument.
“but it is not presently available to him. Plaintiffs first three causes of action will proceed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 136] is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court SUSTAINS Petitioner's Objection. It is the opinion of this Court that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be, and is, hereby ORDERED REJECTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.”
“Therefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement [EOF No. 89] is GRANTED IN PART, as to Plaintiffs Count III: Discrimination in violation of the WVHRA, and DENIED IN PART regarding the Plaintiffs remaining three counts.”
“The Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 37] is DENIED; however, the Court'finds that the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of age discrimination.”
“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [ECF 4], is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court hereby DENIES the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend his Complaint.”
“Defendant Smith’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 3] the Fourth Amendment claim against him is GRANTED.”
“Defendant City of Paw Paw’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 5] the negligence claim against it is GRANTED. Defendant Yoder’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 5] the Fourth Amendment claim is DENIED.”
“The Motions to dismiss as to Berkeley County Commission and Berkeley County Sheriff’s Department [ECF No. 4], and the City of Charles Town [ECF No. 3] were unopposed by the Plaintiff and are therefore GRANTED;”
“Chronister’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.”
“Air Methods’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED, and the claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”
“West Virginia University’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED, and the claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”
“HealthNet Aeromedical Services’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED, and the claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”
“Berkeley County Board of Education’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED, and the claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”
“Berkeley County Assessor and Berkeley County Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 27] is GRANTED, and the claims against them are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;”
“West Virginia Department of Education’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 29] is GRANTED, and the claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”
“Nationwide Mutual Insurance Corporate Office’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 68] is GRANTED, and the claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Eastern Panhandle Anesthesia Associates’s Motion to Compel Arbitration [ECF No. 31] is GRANTED, and this Civil Action is ORDERED STAYED as to EPAA only pending arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims against it;”
“As for Dr. Barnett and Aramark, their Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED because the Plaintiff has failed to adequately state a claim. ECF Nos. 32 & 70.”
“The remaining Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 15, 18 & 37] are GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ECF No. 1.”
“The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 9] is GRANTED, the Petitioner’s petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“For the reasons stated above and more fully explained in Defendants’ memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment, the Court does hereby GRANT the same. ECF No. 86.”
“The Court also finds summary judgment is not warranted or appropriate for the Government, so its Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. ECF No. 89.”
“Therefore, the Church’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. ECF No. 9.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled docket is dominated by pro se federal-prisoner filings (2241 habeas petitions and Bivens/civil-rights suits) referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, alongside a smaller mix of diversity contract, construction, and removed civil actions; contested dispositive rulings in the prisoner cases are almost always R&R adoptions rather than motions briefed directly to the district judge.
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 | 1 | 2 |
| 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 Northern District of West Virginia, not for Judge Groh: 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 | 300 | 10.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 9 | not reported |
| Closed before pretrial | 272 | 9.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 15 | 14.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 300 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 268 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 290 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 301 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 318 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 341 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 414 | 12.2 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 Groh with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Groh, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Groh's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace