Clay D. Land
How Judge Land rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Land
Clay D. Land is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Land received a commission on December 21, 2001.
Judge Land's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Land'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 Land decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Land required concrete evidence before applying bad-faith equitable relief from the removal deadline.
“Best Buy pointed to no evidence that Public Service acted in bad faith by concealing the true amount in controversy during the five years this action was pending in the state court.”
He admitted specialized testimony when the expert used the same diagnostic method employed in clinical practice.
“the Court is satisfied that Radtke, an epilepsy specialist, evaluated Mrs. Bullock’s behavior using the same methodology he would have used if she were one of his patients.”
Procedural preferences
In Barker ex rel. United States v. Columbus Regional Healthcare System, Inc., Land denied a motion to dismiss because the pleaded allegations were sufficiently specific and plausible. He distinguished that inquiry from predicting whether the plaintiff could ultimately prove the allegations.
“Finding the Twombly/Iqbal urge irresistible, many lawyers fail to appreciate the distinction between determining whether a claim for relief is ‘plausibly stated,’ the inquiry required by Twombly/Iqbal, and divining whether actual proof of that claim is ‘improbable,’ a feat impossible for a mere mortal, even a federal judge.”
He did not permit a party to add a new claim through summary-judgment briefing.
“a plaintiff is not permitted to avoid summary judgment by attempting to amend a complaint in response to a summary judgment motion.”
Cautions
Land enforced a prompt-notice insurance condition when the record showed no reasonable explanation for a six-month delay.
“The present factual record does not disclose any reasonable excuse for waiting over six months to notify State Farm of the alleged theft loss.”
He treated the jury right as sufficiently fundamental to excuse an honest procedural mistake under the court’s discretion.
“This Court likewise finds it so fundamental that it should not be forfeited based solely upon an honest mistake by counsel.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, Best Buy’s attempted removal of this action over one year after it was commenced was not-proper, and Public Service’s motion to remand (ECF No. 8) is granted.”
“For the reasons explained in this Order, State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is granted.”
“Accordingly, Cureton’s motion for leave and to reopen discovery is denied.”
“For the reasons explained in this Order, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) is granted, and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is denied.”
“Defendants also submitted a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28). That Motion is now moot.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant’s Bill of Costs (Doc. 187) and orders that each party bear its own costs.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) as to Plaintiffs CFAA claim. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.”
“As discussed above, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) is granted.”
“For the reasons stated in this Order, Defendant Tidwell’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is denied.”
“Accordingly, the motions for summary judgment are denied.”
“For these reasons, the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and grants Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, finding that under the present circumstances Colony has a duty to defend the underlying action.”
“This matter is before the Court pursuant to a Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge entered on March 20, 2009 which recommends that Petitioner’s petition be granted and that Petitioner be given a new trial. ... Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and makes it the order of this Court.”
“Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) is granted, and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled cases included habeas, civil-rights, employment, consumer, product-liability, motor-vehicle, and Social Security matters. Retained timelines ranged from empty shells to short dispositive histories.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 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 Middle District of Georgia, not for Judge Land: 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 Land with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Land, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Land's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace