Christopher C. Bly
How Judge Bly rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bly
Christopher C. Bly is a United States magistrate judge for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta. He joined the court in 2018 and earned his law degree from Emory University School of Law.
Judge Bly's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bly, 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
Filing
A party relying on deposition testimony for summary judgment must file the complete transcript.
“Any party that relies on deposition testimony shall file a complete copy of the deposition transcript.”
Motions
For a nondispositive motion, contact the other parties and state their position in the motion.
“Prior to filing any non-dispositive motion, a party must contact the non-moving party or parties to determine whether any party opposes the motion.”
Motions
Limit the summary judgment statement to fifty numbered facts unless the court grants leave.
“The Court will not consider more than 50 numbered facts. The movant may present more than 50 numbered facts only by first seeking and receiving leave of the Court to do so.”
Discovery
Do not file contested discovery motions against another party; email a position statement and request a conference.
“The filing of discovery-related motions against a party to the litigation (except for unopposed, consent, or joint motions) is prohibited.”
Discovery
Confer by telephone or in person before presenting a discovery dispute.
“required to confer, by telephone or in person, in good faith before bringing a discovery dispute to the Court.”
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 Bly decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Yvonne M. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Bly recommended reversing and remanding a benefits denial. The district judge adopted his recommendation in part, modified it in part, and ordered a remand.
“The final decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED, and this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the R&R and this Order pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g).”
In the Harris identification dispute, he recommended suppression because the officer saw the suspect mainly in profile from roughly fifty yards and gave only a sparse initial description, despite a prompt identification and stated confidence.
“balance is the limited nature of his observation itself.”
In Moore’s suppression dispute, Bly recommended granting the motion because the government did not meet its burden to show the statements were voluntary; he expressly stopped short of finding they were involuntary. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“I find only that the Government has not met its burden of showing that the statements were voluntary.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Dulaney, Bly recommended denying three suppression motions involving a vehicle, cell phones, and statements. The district judge adopted his recommendation, finding probable cause and applying the plain-view doctrine to the phones.
“Dulaney's Motion to Suppress Search and Seizure of Defendants' Vehicle Resulting From Unconstitutional Traffic Stop [Doc. 35], Motion to Suppress Search and Seizure of Cell Phones [Doc. 36], and Motion to Suppress Statements [Doc. 34] are DENIED.”
In McCrary and Tyus, Bly recommended denying a severance request without prejudice before discovery, leaving the city free to raise it again before trial if the record later supported separation.
“motion to sever, (Doc. 10), be DENIED without prejudice so that Defendant is allowed to re-raise this issue at an appropriate time before trial”
Cautions
In United States v. Kazmende, Bly recommended denying motions to dismiss firearm charges based on the Second Amendment and Commerce Clause; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“that the motions to dismiss based on the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause be DENIED [ECFs 90 and 104]”
In Kulwicki, Bly recommended denying the employers’ motion to dismiss a Title VII complaint. District Judge Brown sustained objections, rejected the recommendation, and granted the motion. Bly’s recommendation is recorded separately from that final result.
“The Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ objections (Dkt. 52), REJECTS the R&R (Dkt. 50), GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 47)”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Dulaney's Motion to Suppress Search and Seizure of Defendants' Vehicle Resulting From Unconstitutional Traffic Stop [Doc. 35], Motion to Suppress Search and Seizure of Cell Phones [Doc. 36], and Motion to Suppress Statements [Doc. 34] are DENIED.”
“Motion to Suppress Search and Seizure of Cell Phones [Doc. 36] ... are DENIED.”
“Motion to Suppress Statements [Doc. 34] are DENIED.”
“Defendant Bertha Aquino-Bustos's Motion to Suppress Evidence Recovered From Her Cell Phone [Doc. 39] is DENIED AS MOOT”
“that her Motion to Suppress Statements [Doc. 41] is DENIED”
“that her Amended Motion to Suppress Evidence Recovered From Her Cell Phone [Doc. 44] is DENIED”
“and that Defendant Aurelio Penaloza-Bravo's Motion to Suppress Statements [Doc. 50] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Kazmende's motion to dismiss Counts Four and Six be DENIED AS MOOT [ECF 89]”
“that the motions to dismiss based on the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause be DENIED [ECFs 90 and 104]”
“and that the motion to suppress be DENIED [ECF 91].”
“The Defendant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation are overruled. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the judgment of the Court. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 38] is DENIED.”
Final R&R recommended REMAND of a removed Georgia dispossessory action for lack of jurisdiction; adopted (no objections), remanded. This remand did not resolve a party motion and illustrates his jurisdictional reasoning.
“The final decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED, and this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the R&R and this Order pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g).”
“I RECOMMEND that Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, (Doc. 21), be DENIED.”
“I recommend that the instant motion to vacate [Doc. 310] be DISMISSED without prejudice as premature”
The report and recommendation followed a guilty-plea allocution and recommended that the district judge accept the defendant's plea; it did not resolve a contested motion.
“to suppress the out-of-court identification procedures be GRANTED.”
“motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, (Doc. 47), be DENIED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, (Doc. 24), be DENIED;”
“suppress cell phone evidence, (Doc. 22), be DENIED AS MOOT;”
“questioning about the firearm and GRANTED as to the October 21, 2022, questioning unrelated to the firearm and as to the contested portions of Officer Taijeron-John’s questioning of Defendant at the APD Public Safety Center.”
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 | 12 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 9 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 8 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 8 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 10 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 10 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 8 | 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 Georgia, not for Judge Bly: 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 | 6,703 | 4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 640 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 4,138 | 1.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,901 | 11.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 31.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,703 | 4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,190 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 8,614 | 13.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,403 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,908 | 6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,463 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,954 | 6.2 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 Bly with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bly, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bly's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace