🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Samuel Ray Cummings

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 26 signed orders read

How Judge Cummings decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

ERISA benefit-denial review: where the plan vests the administrator with discretionary authority, he reviews only for abuse of discretion (Firestone deference) -- the claimant must show the denial was arbitrary or capricious on the administrative record. Treating-physician opinions get no special deference, and a 1132(a)(3) equitable claim is unavailable when a 1132(a)(1)(B) money-benefits remedy exists.

“To survive summary judgment, Plaintiff must demonstrate that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether Defendants' denial of his claim was arbitrary or capricious. ... Because a suit for monetary damages under section 1132(a)(1)(B) is available to Plaintiff, he cannot assert a separate ERISA claim under section 1132(a)(3) seeking the same relief.”

Signed rulings

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

Hill v. McKenzie
1:17-cv-00021-C · 2017-07-21

The available text states that Cummings dismissed the action 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction' and that the order was entered by Senior Judge Sam R. Cummings on July 21, 2017; the order also addressed a motion for leave to file. The text does not reveal a clear contested party-motion outcome beyond the jurisdictional dismissal.

Sharma v. Amazon.com, Inc.
3:21-cv-00054-C-BK · 2022-03-28
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and all claims asserted against Defendants are DISMISSED. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sam R Cummings on 3/28/2022)”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement, Doc. 25, should be DENIED and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 28, should be GRANTED.”

San Miguel v. Cochran
5:20-cv-00041-C-BQ · 2020-09-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant John Cochran's Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against said Defendant are DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Rendon v. Edwards
5:21-cv-00278-C · 2022-11-16

Cummings adopted an unobjected R&R after plain-error review and entered a limited scheduling order requiring the defendant to file a qualified-immunity motion under Rule 12(c) or Rule 56 by a set date, with discovery stayed pending that ruling. The order states that 'a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity should be determined at the earliest possible stage of the litigation' and that a plaintiff 'must survive the... qualified immunity defense[] without any discovery' under Carswell v. Camp, 37 F.4th 1062.

Hughes v. Collier
1:21-CV-00069-C · 2021-10-12
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“As a result, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 1) is DENIED.”

Williams v. Caudillo
5:21-CV-00106-BQ · 2021-12-20
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Doc. 12) is DENIED.”

In re Reagor-Dykes Motors, LP (Nyle Maxwell of Taylor, LLC v. Reagor Auto Mall, Ltd.)
5:19-CV-053-C · 2019-04-25
Motion to withdraw reference (defendant) Granted in part

“Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and the Motion to Withdraw Reference is GRANTED IN PART.”

West v. Holmes
3:22-CV-0953-C-BN · 2022-05-31
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted in part

“It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner's habeas application be DISMISSED without prejudice.”

Guthrie v. Director, TDCJ-CID
3:21-CV-1257-C-BN · 2022-09-12
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.”

Certificate of appealability (petitioner) Denied

“Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), this Court finds that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.”

Stewart v. Davis
3:16-CV-3306-C-BN · 2018-02-15
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted

“The Court should grant Respondent's motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 17] and dismiss this action as time-barred”

Cardenas-Rodriguez v. United States
1:19-CV-153-C · 2020-09-08
Motion to vacate 28 usc 2255 (movant) Denied

“Movant's claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED.”

Griffin v. Furlow
5:23-CV-016-C · 2023-05-23
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED and her Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.”

Sua sponte dismissal Granted

“the Court all of Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Senior-judge docket. Sampled enumeration (2022-2023) is almost entirely 28 U.S.C. 2255 motions to vacate ('<name> v. United States') that terminate within 1-12 days -- consistent with administrative handling/transfer to the sentencing judge rather than contested adjudication. Contested civil matters (ERISA, prisoner 1983, insurance) are sparse and referred to magistrates (Toliver). His 2255 dockets carry no docket entries.

Put Judge Cummings's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Cummings actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Cummings's own signed orders and cites them.