Robert Toombs Dawson
How Judge Dawson rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dawson
Robert Toombs Dawson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Dawson received a commission on April 7, 1998. Judge Dawson assumed senior status on August 14, 2009.
Judge Dawson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Dawson's own (checked October 10, 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 Dawson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Contents of First Community Bank Accounts, he denied summary judgment because assessing the claimant’s explanation would require weighing evidence and credibility.
“For the Court to determine the veracity of Mancilla's statements ... would require the Court to judge the evidence and its weight, which is an impermissible step at summary judgment.”
Procedural preferences
In Jones v. Allen, he reviewed objections de novo and adopted a recommendation that granted summary judgment on some prisoner claims while allowing another to proceed.
“The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety.”
Cautions
In Gleghorn, Dawson found that a lateral transfer retaining the plaintiff's pay and title was not a constructive discharge and granted defendants summary judgment.
“Viewing these allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff was constructively discharged from his employment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23) is denied.”
“For the reasons stated, Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985 and for declaratory relief are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims that he was provided an inadequate diet and his meals were served in an unsanitary environment. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's claim that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was denied access to newspapers or other media sources containing news coverage.”
“1. The Renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiff’s official capacity claims are hereby dismissed; 2. the motion is DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS; and 3. Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims remain before the Court.”
Purely procedural order granting plaintiffs leave to file their answer to a motion to dismiss under seal; not a ruling on the merits of the underlying motion to dismiss, so excluded from dispositive-motion stats.
“In accordance with the plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (#22), and being well and sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds that this matter should be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.”
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) filed by Lt. Gary Ashcraft is GRANTED, and he is DISMISSED as a defendant in this action.”
“Summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s gender discrimination claims under Title VII and the EPA and retaliation claim under Title VII is DENIED. Summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and substantive/procedural due process claims is GRANTED and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate judgment will be entered accordingly.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Ten terminated cases from 2021 and 2022 provide a non-random duration sample. Several contested cases ended by settlement or stipulated dismissal rather than a merits ruling. The available records support only limited dispositive-motion timing, including the Nunnelee recommendation adoption described below.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Dawson was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2025.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 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 United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, not for Judge Dawson: 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 | 468 | 9.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 38 | 3.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 341 | 8.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 85 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 468 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 465 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 555 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 564 | 11.9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 517 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 556 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 727 | 11.2 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 Dawson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dawson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dawson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace