Robert M. Norway
How Judge Norway rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Norway
Robert M. Norway has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Orlando Division of the Middle District of Florida since March 2023. He earned his law degree from the University of Florida and previously worked as a civil litigator, a Justice Department attorney, and a United States Army officer.
Judge Norway's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Norway, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Discovery
For a deposition dispute, consult the Discovery Handbook and confer on the record before calling chambers for a telephone conference.
“If a dispute arises during a deposition in a case assigned to Judge Norway, the parties may call chambers to request a telephone conference after consulting the Discovery Handbook for guidance. But prior to contacting chambers, counsel should conduct a good-faith conference pursuant to Local Rule 3.01 (g) on the record.”
Conferences
Tell the courtroom deputy at least one business day before a hearing if a lawyer with five or fewer years of experience will argue; multiple lawyers may then argue.
“A party should advise Judge Norway's courtroom deputy at least one business day prior to the beginning of the hearing if a lawyer with five or fewer years of experience will participate in oral argument. In that event, Judge Norway will allow multiple lawyers to argue on behalf of that party.”
Trial
For a consent trial, Judge Norway will provide a date certain.
“Upon consent of the parties, Judge Norway will provide a date certain for trial.”
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 10, 2026).
How Judge Norway decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rodriguez v. Beamer, he dismissed damages claims against a state judge at the pleading stage because the alleged acts were judicial acts protected by absolute judicial immunity, and amendment would not cure the defect.
“Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for those acts taken while they are acting in their judicial capacity unless they acted in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.'”
In Collins’s Social Security appeal, he affirmed after finding that the administrative decision accounted for episodic symptoms and that the record did not show bad days frequent or severe enough to prevent the assessed work.
“the ALJ did not ignore the episodic nature of Collins’ symptoms but rather found that the record did not indicate Collins’ ‘bad days’ would be severe or frequent enough to render her unable to perform the type of work specified in the RFC assessment.”
Procedural preferences
In Rodriguez v. Beamer, he treated an unanswered motion as unopposed under Local Rule 3.01(c) after warning the pro se litigant, then decided it on the papers before the court.
“the Court treats the motion as unopposed and decides the 'motion on the papers before [it].'”
In Esmaeil v. Gutteridge Jeancharles, he denied a request to proceed under a pseudonym because the asserted risks did not establish a substantial privacy interest overcoming the presumption of open proceedings.
“Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing a substantial privacy right that overcomes the presumption of judicial openness.”
A request to replace an appointed mediator was treated as reconsideration of the existing mediation order. Norway denied it when the movant identified no change in law, relevant new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.
“Plaintiff offers no intervening change in controlling law or relevant new evidence.”
Cautions
In Rodriguez, Norway dismissed claims against a state judge with prejudice after finding judicial immunity barred the alleged acts and further amendment would be futile.
“No amendment will cure the deficiency discussed in this order.”
In Doe, Norway denied pseudonymous filing in a challenge to a federal registration record because the information at issue was already public and the asserted added exposure from a court docket did not outweigh open proceedings.
“Those harms are insufficient.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant John D.W. Beamer's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 34) is GRANTED; 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.”
“ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Norway on 3/20/2025.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed Pseudonymously (Dkt. 13) is DENIED;”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Dkt. 14) is DENIED as moot;”
“The Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED;”
“The Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED;”
“He therefore has not met his burden, and the motion is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed Pseudonymously (Dkt. 3) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 166 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 32 days (N = 5).
From 2023 through 2025, Norway's docket combined criminal initial-appearance and complaint matters with a varied consent-civil docket. The criminal matters typically ended within days and did not produce merits rulings, while many consent cases resolved through settlement or mediation before a dispositive decision. He also handled civil referrals from district judges in the Orlando Division.
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 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 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 Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Norway: 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 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 49 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,492 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 319 | 14.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,115 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,777 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,781 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,749 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,392 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 6,830 | 5.7 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 Norway with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Norway, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Norway's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace