James A. Wynn Jr.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit circuit Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 30 signed orders read

How Judge Wynn decides

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

What persuades

In civil-rights and prisoner cases he reads the pleading and summary-judgment standards to protect the non-moving party, taking well-pleaded allegations as true and refusing to require a prior tragedy before a government defendant can be charged with knowledge of an obvious, life-threatening risk it had itself formally recognized.

“Taken to its logical conclusion, the Housing Authority’s argument would amount to a “one free death” card.”

In immigration and agency-review cases he construes the nexus and eligibility requirements in light of the whole record, treating an applicant's immutable characteristic or status as a cognizable cause of persecution rather than isolating the immediate trigger.

“it was Oliva’s status as a former gang member that led MS-13 to demand rent in the first place and to assault him for failure to pay it.”

Procedural preferences

He guards a litigant's procedural entitlements at the summary-judgment stage, treating a pro se plaintiff's verified complaint as sworn evidence and refusing to allow judgment before outstanding discovery is resolved.

“an amended complaint does not divest an earlier verified complaint of its evidentiary value as an affidavit at the summary judgment stage.”

He insists that adjudicators actually engage with the record: an immigration judge who ignores the single most important piece of a party's evidence commits reversible procedural error, not an unreviewable discretionary weighing.

“the Immigration Judge here failed to consider the single most important piece of evidence Garcia Cortes offered at her hearing, he violated the procedure required by statute.”

Cautions

He applies the categorical approach with textual rigor in criminal cases: where a statute's least-culpable conduct falls outside the federal definition, he will not let a prior conviction stand as a predicate, reversing or vacating rather than filling the gap for the government.

“By its terms, the force clause does not reach the use of physical force against property solely owned by the defendant.”

He enforces the government's burden and the limits of its authority, holding an agency to notice-and-comment rulemaking when it makes policy under delegated power and declining to treat an informal guidance document as a valid substitute.

“When an agency relies on expressly delegated authority to establish policy—as the Secretary does with regard to FAQ 33—courts generally treat the agency action as legislative, rather than interpretive, rulemaking.”

Signed rulings

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

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Nos. 08-2370, 09-1928, 09-2113 · 2011-04-14
Appeal (appellant (public utility challenging a fee award)) Denied

“We hold that Plaintiffs’ successes properly supported the award of attorneys’ fees and costs and affirm the district court. Nos. 08-2370 and 09-1928 DISMISSED No. 09-2113 AFFIRMED”

Minnieland Private Day School, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co.
No. 16-1511 · 2017-08-11
Appeal (appellant (reinsurance company seeking to compel arbitration)) Granted in part

“Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Lee v. Town of Seaboard
No. 16-1447 · 2017-07-14
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff shot by a police officer)) Granted

“For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED AND REMANDED.”

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co.
No. 17-1585 · 2018-03-26
Appeal (appellant (defunct asbestos-installation company insured)) Denied

“For reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED”

Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters, Inc. v. Azar
No. 17-2237 · 2018-07-23
Appeal (appellant (Secretary of Health and Human Services)) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court enjoining the Secretary from enforcing the policy set forth in FAQ 33 against Children’s Hospital, and vacate the district court’s opinion to the extent it concludes that that policy conflicts with the language of Section 1396r-4(g), but without prejudice to Children’s Hospital’s right to raise that argument in another proceeding. AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART”

In re: John Earl McFadden
No. 15-206 · 2016-06-20
Appeal (movant (state prisoner seeking to file a successive habeas petition)) Denied

“Because McFadden has failed to make a prima facie showing that his application meets the requirements of Section 2244(b), we deny his motion to file a successive habeas application. MOTION DENIED”

United States v. Hunter
No. 12-5035 · 2013-11-13
Appeal (appellant (defendant sentenced as an armed career criminal)) Denied

“For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED”

United States v. Clarke
No. 15-4299 · 2016-11-18
Appeal (appellant (defendant convicted of attempted enticement)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Berry
No. 14-4934 · 2016-02-19
Appeal (appellant (defendant challenging his tier III designation)) Granted

“We therefore vacate Defendant's sentence and remand for the district court to determine Defendant's proper tier classification (i.e., I or II), calculate the corresponding Sentencing Guidelines range, and impose a sentence. VACATED AND REMANDED”

United States v. Davis
No. 16-7671 · 2022-11-10
Appeal (appellant (Section 2255 movant challenging a Section 924(c) conviction)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court's denial of Davis's § 2255 motion. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED”

United States v. Taylor-Sanders
Nos. 20-4604, 21-4136 · 2023-12-12
Appeal (appellant (defendant challenging her sentence after a guilty plea with an appeal waiver)) Moot / procedural

“We conclude that each of Taylor-Sanders's claims on appeal are barred by the appeal waiver in her guilty plea. Therefore, her appeal is DISMISSED.”

United States v. Williams
No. 19-7354 · 2023-01-03
Appeal (appellant (movant seeking equitable tolling of Rule 60(b)(3))) Denied

“And because Williams filed his motion more than three and a half years after the applicable district court order, the court correctly held that his motion was untimely filed. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of Williams's Rule 60(b)(3) motion. AFFIRMED”

Put Judge Wynn's record to work

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

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