Alfreda Lynette Sheppard
How Judge Sheppard rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sheppard
Alfreda Lynette Sheppard began serving as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Georgia in January 2025 and sits in Albany. She previously worked in the Georgia public defender's office and practiced civil and criminal law at Watson Spence LLP. She earned degrees from Fort Valley State University, the University of Alabama, and Western Michigan University's law school.
Judge Sheppard's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Sheppard's own (checked October 9, 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).
- 2026-03, In re: Standing Order Section 2241 Immigration Petitions for Bond Hearings at Stewart Detention Center ↗
- 2026-01, In re: Standing Order Immigration Petitions for Bond Hearings at Stewart Detention Center ↗
- 2025-02, In re: Standing Order Access and Mgmt of Sealed Docs ↗
- 2021-01, In re: Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
How Judge Sheppard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In C.D. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Sheppard recommended reversal because the ALJ's finding about the claimant's hand use conflicted with the only medical opinion on that limitation and lacked an adequate evidentiary basis.
“Because Dr. Chadwick's consultative opinion was the only medical opinion regarding Plaintiff's ability to handle, finger, and feel, the RFC that assessed a different level of ability to perform those manipulations rested on nothing more than the ALJ's review of the sparse medical records related to Plaintiff's wrist limitations.”
In Marlin v. Andrews, she recommended denying a prison medical provider's motion to dismiss for nonexhaustion because the defendant had not provided evidence to rebut the prisoner's account of an unavailable grievance process.
“Defendant has submitted nothing in support of its position or to refute Plaintiff's explanation... A remedy that the institution swallowed whole is not a remedy at all.”
In Daker v. Ford, she recommended dismissal for failure to exhaust because the prisoner’s admission that he had filed more than 367 grievances contradicted his claim that the grievance process was unavailable. She found that his retaliation allegations did not show he was prevented from using that process.
“Plaintiff's admission that he filed more than 367 Original Grievances demonstrates that he was intimately familiar with the Grievance Policy and that the grievance process was available to him.”
Procedural preferences
In Taylor v. Cochran, she gave the prisoner one opportunity to correct defects in his complaint after initial screening, instead of immediately recommending dismissal.
“Rather than recommending dismissal, the Court will afford Plaintiff one opportunity to remedy the defects as explained herein.”
In White v. Jones, she recommended transferring claims tied to an earlier prison to the proper district because dismissing and requiring refiling could leave them time-barred.
“It is possible that some of Plaintiff's claims arising from his treatment at HSP could be barred by the statute of limitations if they are dismissed and Plaintiff is required to refile them. Thus, dismissal of these claims may effectively be with prejudice, which would not be in the interest of justice at this stage of the proceeding.”
Cautions
In Roach v. Jefferies, she denied the prisoner's request for appointed counsel after finding that his filings showed he could present his claims, including a successful motion for reconsideration.
“Despite Plaintiff's claims that the issues are complex, he adequately presented his claims such that his claims survived frivolity screening, he was granted in forma pauperis status, and... Plaintiff successfully moved for reconsideration.”
In Hood v. Jester, she recommended rejecting equitable tolling for an untimely habeas petition. She found that the petitioner's cogent filings undercut his claim that cognitive limitations had prevented timely action.
“Petitioner filed cogent -- if mistaken -- motions to appoint counsel and to withdraw his guilty plea, and he presented his arguments such that the Court could consider them... the Court finds that Petitioner has not shown that his alleged brain damage is an extraordinary circumstance.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“As the Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED pursuant to Sentence Four of § 405(g).”
“it is recommended that Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be DENIED. (Doc. 718).”
“it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s claims arising from his treatment at VSP are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It is further RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendants Jones, McCastler, Rollin, and McGee, all of which arise from Plaintiff’s treatment at Hays State Prison (‘HSP’), be TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Georgia.”
“it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED. (Doc. 16).”
“Inasmuch as Plaintiff has failed to fully exhaust administrative remedies as to his claims, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docs. 112, 116, 130) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's Recast Complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. Consequently, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.”
“Given this Court's order to recast, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. 21) is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement and medical treatment claims against Defendants Jefferies, Jones, and Pope shall proceed for further factual development, but it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's remaining claims be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“it is recommended that Petitioner’s motion for equitable tolling and motion for a Schlup hearing (Doc. 19) be DENIED, Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) be GRANTED, and Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as untimely.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 49) be DENIED.”
“As the Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s decision be REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of § 405(g).”
“Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 20) is DENIED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Fourteen of the fifteen reviewed matters are Social Security disability appeals assigned under the parties' consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
- Several were inherited from her predecessor when she took the bench in January 2025, and the remainder were filed during her tenure.
- The other matter was an initial-appearance and interdistrict-removal proceeding arising from an out-of-district warrant.
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 |
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 Georgia, not for Judge Sheppard: 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 | 737 | 6.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 281 | 6.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 443 | 6.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 8 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 5 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 737 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 648 | 8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 668 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 727 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 728 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 643 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 710 | 8.1 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 Sheppard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sheppard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sheppard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace