ILNews

Southern District names new magistrate

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana announced today the selection of Mark J. Dinsmore as magistrate judge. He fills the position vacated by Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, who was elevated to an Article III judgeship in June.
 

Dinsmore-mark-mug Dinsmore

A Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Committee chaired by retired Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields reviewed more than 50 applications and recommended five candidates for the position. The District judges of the court interviewed the candidates and chose Dinsmore.

Dinsmore is currently a partner at Barnes & Thornburg. He has focused on the use of technology to facilitate the management of complex matters and chairs the firm’s Litigation Department Technology Committee. Dinsmore has focused his litigation practice on management of complex cases, with concentrations in construction litigation and electronic discovery. He has also represented clients in international and domestic arbitrations, including representing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in an international arbitration arising out of the Dayton Accords that ended the Balkan war.

Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, he was a law clerk for Judge John D. Tinder when the judge was on the bench of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana. A Valparaiso native, Dinsmore is a graduate of the University of Toledo College of Law where he graduated first in his class. Before attending law school, Dinsmore served as a captain in the U.S. Army.

He serves as treasurer of the Indiana Legal Services board of directors and is a member of the Heartland Pro Bono Council board of directors.

U.S. magistrate judges are appointed by the judges of the U.S. District Court for a term of eight years and are eligible for reappointment to successive terms. Dinsmore’s appointment will be effective upon completion of required Internal Revenue Service and FBI background investigations.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT