Zachary C. Bolitho
How Judge Bolitho rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho became a U.S. magistrate judge for the Northern District of Florida in May 2022 and sits in Pensacola. Before joining the court, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Tennessee and held leadership roles at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Judge Bolitho's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bolitho, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Meet and confer before motions before Judge Bolitho; failure usually leads to denial.
“Parties are expected to comply with their meet and confer obligations and in most circumstances a failure to do so will result in a denial of the pertinent motion.”
Conferences
Remote appearances before Judge Bolitho require prior approval unless the hearing notice says otherwise.
“telephonic or remote appearances are allowed only with prior approval from Judge Bolitho.”
Conferences
A motion to set a referred hearing before Judge Bolitho must offer at least three dates and times.
“the parties must file a motion that includes at least three dates and times.”
Conferences
After a hearing notice, request a new date by motion to continue.
“All requests for a new hearing date after a notice of hearing has been posted must be made through a motion to continue.”
Trial
Parties presenting exhibits before Judge Bolitho must supply a courtesy copy.
“If exhibits are to be presented during a hearing or trial, the Court requires a courtesy copy.”
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 Bolitho decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bank of America v. Jones, he recommended remanding a foreclosure case because the notice of removal was untimely and the state-law complaint supplied no federal-question jurisdiction.
“Because the notice of removal was untimely filed, this matter should be remanded to state court.”
In Rudder v. Wyrosdick, he recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of federal-question jurisdiction because FERPA, the complaint’s sole asserted federal basis, creates no private cause of action.
“because there is no private cause of action under FERPA-the only basis mentioned in the complaint for federal question jurisdiction-this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' case.”
Procedural preferences
In Watson v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, he reviewed the Department of Justice's denial of a Touhy request under the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard. He framed the question as whether the denial was legally flawed, rather than whether the agency should have disclosed the requested material.
“the issue before the Court today is not whether the Department should have denied the Touhy request. Instead, the narrow question the Court must answer is: Was the Department’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Touhy request so flawed as to warrant the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ label?”
In Waller v. Kight, he examined the merits of an unanswered partial summary-judgment motion before recommending judgment. He said the motion's unopposed status alone could not support summary judgment.
“the Court cannot base the entry of summary judgment on the mere fact that the motion was unopposed, but, rather, must consider the merits of the motion.”
In Gelb v. Santiago, he recommended dismissal without prejudice after the prisoner failed to supply ordered service copies and did not respond to a show-cause order.
“it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court.”
In Hales v. Preston, he found the civil-conspiracy allegations insufficient because the complaint identified dispersed speakers’ criticism but did not plausibly allege an agreement to engage in unlawful conduct.
“The second amended complaint alleges a sprawling conspiracy involving people from across the United States, all of whom share one thing in common—they have said negative things about Plaintiff Hales on social media. But there are insufficient facts alleged to plausibly show an agreement between all the members of the supposed conspiracy to engage in an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means.”
Cautions
In Barge’s request for an emergency injunction, Bolitho found that the complaint did not identify which claims were brought against which defendants or specify the requested relief. He recommended denying the motion because the plaintiff had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
“The complaint Plaintiff filed in this case is a ‘shotgun pleading’ that fails to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”
A party seeking service expenses under Rule 4(d) must prove entitlement and rebut a plausible claim that the waiver request was never received; an unanswered assertion of nonreceipt can establish good cause for not returning the waiver.
“Defendant Teschendorf has plausibly asserted that he never received the waiver documents, Plaintiffs have failed to rebut that assertion, and the failure to receive waiver documents provides good cause.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: 1. Plaintiff's ‘Motion to Determine Fee Amount,’ (Doc. 22), be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 2. Plaintiff be awarded $2,120.00 in attorneys' fees.”
“Because Defendants' notice of removal was untimely and this Court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over the case, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: 1. This case be REMANDED to state court; and 2. All pending motions be denied as moot.”
“the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that: 1. Defendants Kight, Lord, and White's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) be GRANTED;”
“2. Defendants Kight, Lord, and White's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26) be DENIED as moot;”
“it is, therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that: 1. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) be GRANTED. 2. Petitioner's habeas petition (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: 1. Defendant William Husfelt's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 10), be GRANTED; 2. Defendants School Board for Santa Rosa County and Timothy Wyrosdick's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 17), be GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;”
“Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion for an Emergency Injunction (Doc. 3) be DENIED.”
Referral R&R for District Judge M. Casey Rodgers in a pro se prisoner Section 1983 case. After the plaintiff failed to submit ordered service copies of the amended complaint and then failed to respond to a show-cause order, Bolitho recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order under N.D. Fla. Local Rule 41.1. Grounding quote: "it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court."
Referral R&R for District Judge M. Casey Rodgers in a removed personal-injury case. After the plaintiff's counsel withdrew, the plaintiff failed to retain new counsel or appear pro se as ordered and failed to respond to a show-cause order. Bolitho recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order, with the defendant's pending summary-judgment motion denied as moot. Grounding quote: "it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that: 1. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court; and 2. All pending motions, including Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14), be DENIED as moot."
Referral R&R for District Judge Lacey A. Collier in a pro se prisoner Section 1983 case naming eight 'Doe' defendants. After the plaintiff failed to identify them during discovery and failed to respond to a show-cause order, Bolitho recommended sua sponte dismissal of the eight defendants without prejudice for lack of prosecution, applying the rule against fictitious-party pleading. Grounding quote: "it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the eight 'Doe' Defendants be DISMISSED without prejudice from this action."
“Defendant Helm’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 52) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Helm DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Hughes’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 53) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Hughes DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Matzkin’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 55) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Matzkin DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Cook’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 61) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Cook DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Lee’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 106) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Lee DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Bonebrake’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 107) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Bonebrake DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Keszey’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 110) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Keszey DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Defendant Teschendorf’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 127) be GRANTED and the claims against Defendant Teschendorf DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;”
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ ‘Motion for Expenses Incurred in Making Service and Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’ (Doc. 134) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Case-level sample of the docket on which he is the assigned (deciding) judge: 636(c)/consent and direct-assignment merits cases, distinct from his referral Report-and-Recommendation workload in the written-order analysis above.
- This assigned docket is predominantly Social Security disability appeals he decides as judge of record, plus removed diversity/personal-injury and insurance suits, an occasional copyright case, and criminal-duty magistrate matters (complaints).
- All sampled cases were filed after he took the bench in May 2022, so no inherited-predecessor caseload distorts the durations.
- These are filing-to-termination case durations, not motion-to-ruling latency.
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 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 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 Northern District of Florida, not for Judge Bolitho: 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 | 148,428 | 47.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 30 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 148,385 | 47.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 4 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 148,428 | 47.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 140,479 | 43.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 36,307 | 27.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 57,845 | 21.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 14,972 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,038 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,148 | 7.5 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 Bolitho with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bolitho, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bolitho's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace