John K. Larkins III
How Judge Larkins rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Larkins
John K. Larkins III is a United States magistrate judge for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta. He joined the court in January 2016 after practicing federal and state litigation and earning his law degree from the University of Georgia.
Judge Larkins's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Larkins'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).
How Judge Larkins decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a firearm suppression dispute, he recommended denying suppression because outstanding arrest warrants attenuated any possible defect in the initial encounter.
“the evidence seized incident should not be suppressed because the discovery of the warrants attenuated the connection between the stop and the seizure.”
Procedural preferences
In a civil rights suit, he recommended voluntary dismissal without prejudice even though the defendant had already moved for summary judgment, finding that the pending motion alone did not establish legal prejudice.
“it is still within this Court’s discretion to allow for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.”
In a criminal case, he denied immediate disclosure of confidential informants after the government committed to call them at trial and disclose their identities and related materials beforehand.
“In light of this representation, the Court will not require the government to disclose the identity of such confidential informant at this time.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 123] as the Opinion and Order of the Court. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 29] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R, [Doc. 164], is ADOPTED as the order of the Court, and that Movant's motions, [Docs. 162, 163], are DENIED as successive.”
“Movant's motions, [Docs. 162, 163], are DENIED as successive.”
Sovereign-citizen defendant found COMPETENT to stand trial on Larkins's R&R (adopted, plain error). This competency determination did not resolve a party motion.
Final R&R recommended REMAND of a removed Georgia dispossessory action for lack of SMJ (no federal question; no diversity); adopted, remanded. The pro se defendant's IFP appeal/injunction motion (the DJ's own rulings) were denied. The R&R did not resolve a party motion and illustrates his jurisdictional reasoning.
“The Court OVERRULES the objections, ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety as the Order of this Court, and DENIES Grady's motion for summary judgment.”
“I RECOMMEND that Plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal, (Doc. 98), be GRANTED without the imposition of any additional conditions.”
“I further RECOMMEND that Jackson's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 79), be DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 38] as the opinion of this Court. For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss [34].”
“Redfin's motion to dismiss the amended complaint [ECF 48] is GRANTED, and the instant action is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“Daker's motion for contempt and sanctions is therefore denied without prejudice.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss [ECF 13] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's sole claim of Title VII sexual harassment may proceed; Plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.”
“Plaintiff's motion for default judgment [ECF 15] and Plaintiff's motion to strike [ECF 16] are DENIED.”
“Daker's objections [ECF 38] are OVERRULED and the R&R [ECF 34] is ADOPTED as the Order of this Court, except that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF 33] is DENIED as moot.”
“The undersigned RECOMMENDS that Petitioner's habeas corpus petition be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust and on grounds of abstention.”
“The undersigned RECOMMENDS that Petitioner's § 2241 petition [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.”
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 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 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 United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, not for Judge Larkins: 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 Larkins with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Larkins, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Larkins's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace