R. David Proctor
How Judge Proctor decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment he parses each count and each defendant separately, preserving genuinely triable claims (Title VII retaliation; individual Section 1981 harassment) even while granting on adjacent counts.
“UAB's Motion is due to be denied as to Count Two. Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim which must be resolved by a trier of fact.”
Enforces mandatory ('shall') forum-selection clauses through forum non conveniens, and will not let a plaintiff enforce a contract while escaping its forum clause.
“it was irreconcilable for Plaintiff to simultaneously attempt to enforce the contracts against Defendants but avoid the form-selection clauses those contracts impose.”
Procedural preferences
Erie restraint: certifies truly debatable, determinative, unresolved questions of state law to the state's highest court rather than guessing.
“The judicially modest approach by a federal court is to defer to state courts about the interpretation of state statutes.”
Cautions
Very low tolerance for shotgun pleadings: he strikes deficient complaints with explicit curing instructions, but after repeated noncompliance he dismisses WITH PREJUDICE and denies further leave.
“Plaintiff has demonstrated either an unwillingness or an inability to remedy these pleading defects, and the interests of judicial economy and fairness to Defendant warrant no further leave to amend.”
Rule 59(e) reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly — not a second bite or a substitute for appeal.
“A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to certify question N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to alter amend N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's Motion (Doc. # 80) is GRANTED and this court respectfully asks the Supreme Court of Alabama to answer the question certified.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend (Doc. # 44) is DENIED.”
“UAB's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 84) is due to be granted as to Counts One, Three, and Four, and on the issue of backpay. However, UAB's Motion is due to be denied as to Count Two. Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim which must be resolved by a trier of fact.”
“Mayer's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 86) is due to be granted as to Count Five. Mayer is due to be dismissed from this case.”
“Cagle's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 85) is due to be denied as to Count Six.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 249 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 54 days (N = 1).
Case-level only (no FJC IDB baseline — post-2021 IDB gap). Counts from the enumerated sample slice, illustrative not exhaustive.