Eleanor Louise Ross
How Judge Ross rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ross
Eleanor Louise Ross is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Ross received a commission on November 20, 2014.
Judge Ross's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ross, 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
Unless otherwise ordered, file motions in limine twenty-one days before the pretrial conference.
“Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, motions in limine shall be filed electronically on the docket no later than TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS before the pretrial conference.”
Discovery
Obtain court permission before filing a discovery motion.
“The parties shall not file discovery motions (including motions to compel, motions for protective order, motions for sanctions) without prior permission from the Court.”
Discovery
Confer by telephone or in person before bringing a discovery dispute.
“Counsel or pro se litigants are 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 Ross decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Myers's trust-fund-tax refund suit, Ross found that the plaintiff was a responsible person based on his financial authority and tax-filing role, then denied his summary judgment motion.
“The Court finds that the undisputed facts in the record clearly show that Plaintiff was a ‘responsible person.’”
Procedural preferences
In Handy Land & Timber, L.L.L.P. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., she granted an unopposed motion to dismiss under Local Rule 7.1B and stated that the motion's merits also supported dismissal.
“Handy Land has not responded to that motion. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is deemed unopposed, and the Court grants it for this reason. See LR 7.1B, NDGa (‘Failure to file a response shall indicate that there is no opposition to the motion.’). Moreover, the Court would grant Transco's motion to dismiss for the well-stated reasons in the motion.”
In Simmons, Ross denied suppression but left an underdeveloped question about a police statement for a later trial motion if the government sought to use it.
“Court will consider a motion in limine if filed, related to Defendant’s statement made to Officer Finks.”
In the reviewed section 2255 adoption orders with no objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the court reviewed the recommendation for plain error before ruling.
“the Court has reviewed the R&R for plain error.”
Cautions
In one post-conviction case, the judge treated a filing labeled as a motion to dismiss the indictment as another attempt to obtain successive § 2255 relief. The procedural gate controlled even though the filing used a different label.
“Movant’s motion to dismiss the indictment is simply another invalid attempt to seek successive § 2255 relief.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 18]”
“and GRANTS the United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 23]. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint for refund.”
“the Court DENIES Handy Land Timber's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 10)”
“GRANTS Defendant Transco's Motion to Dismiss (Doc, No. 9); DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff Handy Land Timber's Amended Motion for a TRO (Doc. No. 3); and DISMISSES THIS CASE.”
“DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff Handy Land Timber's Amended Motion for a TRO (Doc. No. 3)”
“the Court (1) GRANTS IN PART as to Ground 2(2) only, and that Petitioner be allowed to file an out-of-time appeal in accordance with the procedure described in United States v. Phillips, 225 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2000), and (2) DISMISSES IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all other grounds presented. Additionally, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.”
“the Court DISMISSES Movant's § 2255 Motion [Doc. 19] as untimely. Additionally, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability because after considering 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
“DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc 11]”
“and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Under the Second Amendment. [Doc. 32-1.]”
“The Court therefore denies Defendant’s request made pursuant to §3582(c)(2).”
“the Court DENIES Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion [Doc. 120]”
“The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. [Doc. 19].”
“the Court GRANTS the Government’s Motion For Leave to File a Sur-reply [Doc. 24]”
“Movant’s motions, [Docs. 162, 163], are DENIED as successive.”
“Movant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, [Doc. 169], is also DENIED as successive”
“Movant’s motion for an extension to file his objections, [Doc. 167], is GRANTED nunc pro tunc, such that his objections are accepted as timely filed.”
“DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. [Doc. 15].”
“DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Illegally Obtained Evidence [Doc. 45].”
“DENIES Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence [Doc. 49]”
“DENIES Defendant’s motion for return of seized property. [Doc. 48].”
“the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss [34].”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 139 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 155.5 days (N = 6).
Mix from case-level docket records (filed December 2022); most carry no nature-of-suit string and no administrative case-closure row (recent filings). General civil docket weighted to consumer (debt-collection and credit-reporting), insurance, and personal-injury/products removals.
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 | 10 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 10 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 9 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 10 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 19 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 14 | 10 |
| Mar 2022 | 20 | 11 |
| Sep 2021 | 11 | 12 |
| Mar 2021 | 17 | 11 |
| Sep 2020 | 8 | 9 |
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 Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division), not for Judge Ross: 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 Ross with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ross, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ross's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace