Marc T. Treadwell
How Judge Treadwell rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Treadwell
Marc Thomas Treadwell is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Treadwell received a commission on June 22, 2010.
Judge Treadwell's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Treadwell'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 Treadwell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a prisoner conditions-of-confinement suit, the judge treated a properly-exhausted grievance as a prerequisite that could defeat an otherwise potentially viable claim, regardless of whether the underlying facts might support relief.
“Because Bey's grievance was procedurally improper and its merits were not addressed, Bey failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies.”
Procedural preferences
On a motion for reconsideration, the judge required more than a restated disagreement with the earlier ruling, an intervening change in law, new evidence, or a clear error, before revisiting a summary-judgment adoption.
“Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.”
On a partial motion for judgment on the pleadings, the judge accepted the plaintiff's concession on the dispositive point (a missed state-law notice deadline) rather than requiring further briefing once the plaintiff's own response conceded the defect.
“In her response, Kaufman concedes that because she failed to comply with the GTCA's ante litem notice requirements, her state law claims are barred.”
When reviewing objections to a summary judgment recommendation, the judge considered exhibits first submitted with the objections but found that they did not create a material factual dispute.
“The Magistrate Judge could not consider evidence that Plaintiff failed to place on the record. Nevertheless, the Court has independently reviewed the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s objection.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Bey's motion to cease and desist and motion for summary judgment (Docs. 64; 65) are DENIED.”
“Further, the defendants' motions for summary judgment (Doc. 62; 79) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motions are GRANTED as to Bey's First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due process claims, and those claims are DISMISSED. The motions are DENIED as to Bey's RLUIPA claim, which will proceed to a bench trial.”
“Huley has raised no change in the law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error in the Court's previous order. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 93) is DENIED.”
“The Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 21) is DENIED.”
“Thus, even considering the additional allegations, the Plaintiff fails to state a claim and, therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings as to this claim... those motions to amend (Docs. 72; 77; 80) are DENIED.”
“Moss has raised no change in the law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error to justify reconsideration of that order. Accordingly, his Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 89) is DENIED.”
“Prescott's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 73) and Blanks and Henderson's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 103) is GRANTED. Moss's claims against Prescott are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and his claims against Blanks and Henderson are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Moss's motion to amend (Doc. 126) is DENIED.”
“As discussed above, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Sterling's individual capacity RLUIPA claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Also, Sterling's official capacity retaliation claims are DISMISSED as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Meanwhile, Sterling's free exercise and retaliation claims against the Defendants in their individual capacities are allowed to proceed.”
“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the recommendation to which Daker objects and ADOPTS the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Daker's Motion to Intervene (Doc. 47) is DENIED.”
“The Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 59) is GRANTED on the Plaintiff's official capacity claims under the First Amendment and the RLUIPA, on the individual capacity free exercise claims for the denial of the use of the dayroom for congregational prayer, and on the individual capacity free exercise claims for the Eid feast that accrued in 2012 and 2013. The Defendants' motion (Doc. 59) is GRANTED on all retaliation claims against Sellers and on all retaliation claims against Ivey. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED on the individual capacity claims under the First Amendment relating to the Defendants' prohibition of the Eid feast in 2014 and 2015.”
“Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 59) is GRANTED in part, as to the Plaintiff's claims under the Georgia Constitution. Those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED on Parato's false certification FCA claim. With regard to Parato's retaliation claim, the Motions are GRANTED to all individual defendants, and DENIED to UnaHealth. Finally, with regard to Parato's breach of contract claim, the Motions are GRANTED to all individual defendants, and DENIED to UnaHealth.”
“Accordingly, the Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED, and the petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled docket, a suit alleging negligence and civil-rights violations after a patient was assaulted at a state-run mental-health facility, produced a partial ruling narrowing state-law claims for a notice-statute defect before the case was dismissed for want of prosecution when the plaintiff stopped participating after counsel withdrew.
- The broader sample also includes prisoner civil-rights suits, Social Security appeals, and insurance disputes.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, not for Judge Treadwell: 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 Treadwell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Treadwell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Treadwell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace