Chad W. Bryan
How Judge Bryan rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bryan
Chad W. Bryan became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Alabama in July 2022. Before joining the court, he spent 19 years handling civil litigation at a Montgomery law firm. He earned undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Alabama.
Judge Bryan's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Bryan'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 Bryan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When deciding whether a crop-insurance dispute must be arbitrated, focuses on the factual source of the claims rather than their pleaded labels and applies the presumption that a broadly worded arbitration clause covers disputes over an insurer's determinations.
“Fillingim’s claims do not become untethered from an NAU ‘determination’ merely because she has labeled them as arising under the parties’ written payment agreement—especially considering that such payment agreements are contemplated in the crop insurance policy itself.”
In Social Security appeals, Bryan frames the inquiry narrowly around whether substantial evidence and the correct legal standard support the agency's decision, not whether he would have reached the same result himself, a consistent deferential framing across both affirmances and reversals.
“the court concludes as follows: that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) is due to be DENIED; that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) is due to be GRANTED; and that the Commissioner's decision is due to be AFFIRMED.”
Procedural preferences
On the Commissioner's own unopposed motion for a sentence-four remand, Bryan grants it readily and enters judgment reversing and remanding for further administrative proceedings, without requiring further briefing.
“it is hereby ORDERED that the 17 motion is GRANTED. The Commissioners underlying decision is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g).”
Cautions
Bryan enforces the Social Security scheduling order's briefing deadlines: when a claimant fails to file the supporting brief the Commissioner's motion to dismiss is granted and summary judgment is entered for the Commissioner without reaching the merits of the disability claim.
“it is hereby ORDERED that the Commissioner's pending 12 motion to dismiss is GRANTED and that summary judgment is due to be entered in favor of the Commissioner on all claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court CONSTRUES Plf's 15 supporting brief as a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Commissioner's 18 opposition brief as a competing Motion for Summary Judgment; the court hereby concludes as follows: that Plf's 15 motion for summary judgment is due to be DENIED; that the Commissioner's 18 motion for summary judgment is due to be GRANTED; and that the Commissioner's decision is due to be AFFIRMED; A separate judgment will issue.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the Commissioner's pending 12 motion to dismiss is GRANTED and that summary judgment is due to be entered in favor of the Commissioner on all claims.”
“the court concludes as follows: that Plf's 16 motion for summary judgment is due to be DENIED; that the Commissioner's 17 motion for summary judgment is due to be GRANTED; and that the Commissioner's decision is due to be AFFIRMED.”
“the court concludes as follows: that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) is due to be DENIED; that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) is due to be GRANTED; and that the Commissioner's decision is due to be AFFIRMED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the 17 motion is GRANTED. The Commissioners underlying decision is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g).”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the 20 motion for attorney fees is GRANTED and that Plaintiff is awarded an EAJA fee in the amount of $5,979.50, as further set out in order.”
“the court concludes as follows: that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 10) is due to be GRANTED; that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18) is due to be DENIED; and that the Commissioner's decision is due to be REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion, including rehearing if necessary.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 5) is due to be DENIED; the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 6) is due to be GRANTED; and the Commissioner's decision is due to be AFFIRMED.”
“Plaintiff's construed motion for summary judgment (Doc. 12) is due to be DENIED; that the Commissioner's construed motion for summary judgment (Doc. 16) is due to be GRANTED; and that the Commissioner's decision is due to be AFFIRMED.”
“that Plaintiff's construed motion for summary judgment (Doc. 11) is due to be DENIED; that the Commissioner's construed motion for summary judgment (Doc. 12) is due to be GRANTED; and that the Commissioner's decision is due to be AFFIRMED.”
“that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 10) is due to be DENIED; that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 11) is due to be GRANTED; and that the Commissioner's decision is due to be AFFIRMED. A separate judgment will issue.”
“that Plaintiff's 8 motion for summary judgment is due to be DENIED; that the Commissioner's 11 motion for summary judgment is due to be GRANTED; and that the Commissioners decision is due to be AFFIRMED; A separate judgment will issue.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Bryan's consent-jurisdiction caseload sampled here is dominated by Social Security disability-benefits appeals (Titles II and XVI), alongside employment-discrimination cases (Title VII, ADA, FLSA), diversity personal-injury and insurance matters, contract disputes, and Section 1983 civil-rights claims.
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 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
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 United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, not for Judge Bryan: 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 | 581 | 7.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 45 | 3.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 525 | 7.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 25 months |
| Closed during trial | 1 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 581 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 485 | 9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 581 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 546 | 13 months |
| Sep 2021 | 502 | 12.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 527 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 508 | 10.8 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 Bryan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bryan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bryan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace