Michael Lawrence Brown
How Judge Brown rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brown
Michael Lawrence Brown is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Brown received a commission on January 17, 2018.
Judge Brown's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brown, 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.
- Standing Order Re Civil Litigation ↗
- Civil Qualifying Jury Questions ↗
- Civil Background Jury Questionnaire ↗
- Criminal Qualifying Jury Questions ↗
- Criminal Background Jury Questionnaire ↗
Key rules
Filing
Certify at the end of every filing whether generative AI was used in drafting or research.
“Judge Brown requires all parties appearing before him—through counsel or pro se—to certify at the end of any filing”
Motions
Confer before filing any dispositive motion.
“All parties shall meet and confer before filing any dispositive motion”
Discovery
Confer by telephone or in person before presenting a discovery dispute.
“Counsel or pro se litigants must meet and confer—by telephone or in person—in a serious good faith effort to resolve any discovery dispute”
Discovery
If conferral fails, file a joint discovery dispute statement of no more than three pages.
“they shall electronically file on the docket a Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Dispute, using the ‘Notice of Filing’ event”
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 Brown decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Trump for President v. CNN, Brown found the challenged statement capable of being proved false but dismissed the defamation claim because the complaint did not plausibly allege actual malice. He held that an ill-will tweet did not show the publisher knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded falsity.
“The tweet might show Mr. Noble's ill will towards the President, but it fails to plead actual malice in the constitutional sense - that is, it does not show Mr. Noble made the Statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.”
In Ghattas, after dismissing the federal retaliation claim, Brown declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state contract claim in an early case with no discovery.
“The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s remaining claim arises entirely under state law.”
Procedural preferences
In Brown v. MUY Pizza-Tejas, LLC, he rejected the defendant’s challenge to jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) because the defendant had not identified another state where the plaintiff could have sued him.
“Bodenstedt has thus not met his burden to defeat Plaintiff’s assertion of jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2). The Court will not do the work for him.”
In an FLSA case, he declined to consider a defendant’s employer-status arguments because they appeared only in footnotes.
“The Court does not consider such arguments.”
In Waszut, Brown agreed that a charged interstate-threat statement should go to the jury where a true-threat finding remained possible on the alleged words and context, while leaving room for renewed arguments at or after trial.
“So Watts supports the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court deny Defendant Waszut’s motion, subject to additional argument at or after trial.”
In Bankhead, after an earlier warning and amendment, Brown adopted a recommendation to dismiss the deficient pleading with prejudice.
“Dismissal with prejudice is warranted because she has ‘squandered’ her opportunity to cure her pleadings’ deficiencies despite the Court’s prior warning.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 16) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1). The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than November 30, 2020.”
“The Court DENIES Defendant Bodenstedt's Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 35).”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant The Kroger Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 34) and DISMISSES this action.”
“Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 59)”
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations Issues (Dkt. 61)... [DENIED]”
“the Court ... GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 30).”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 40, 51)”
“Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Based on Issue Preclusion (Dkt. 104) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“The Court DENIES Defendant Resh, Inc.’s renewed Motion to Stay (Dkt. 105).”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant Johnson’s Rule 12(i) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. 59).”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant Manning’s motion to dismiss for failure to effectuate service of process (Dkt. 71) and DISMISSES Defendant Manning from this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order declining to enter default against Defendant Manning (Dkt. 73).”
“The Court DISMISSES Count 1 (Title VI) and Count 6 (Injunctive Relief) WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court otherwise GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's remaining claims (Counts 2–5, and 7) WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close this case.”
“The Court OVERRULES Marshall's Objections (Dkt. 76), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 74) with the addition that the Court also applies the good-faith exception to suppression, and DENIES Marshall's Motions to Suppress his statements (other than pre-Miranda statements), the search of his home, the search of his person and phone, and the search of his Snapchat account (Dkts. 41, 42, 43, 46).”
“The Court OVERRULES Defendant Barnes's Objections (Dkt. 227), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 223), and DENIES the Defendant Barnes's Motions to Suppress (Dkts. 162, 163).”
“The Court OVERRULES Defendant Arnold's Objections (Dkts. 252 ), SUSTAINS the United States's Objections (Dkt. 254 ), ADOPTS IN PART the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 249 ), and DENIES Defendant Arnold's Motions to Sever and to Suppress (Dkts. 168, 231 ).”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant Arnold's Motion to Seal (Dkt. 230 ).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 285 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 333.0 days (N = 2).
The sampled cases reflect a general civil docket in which personal-injury removals, consumer credit-reporting matters, and debt-collection suits are common. The published opinions also include a notable First Amendment and defamation dispute.
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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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 Brown: 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 Brown with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brown, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brown's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace