Matthew James Maddox
How Judge Maddox rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Maddox
Matthew James Maddox is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Maddox received a commission on November 3, 2023.
Judge Maddox's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Maddox'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).
- Order 2026-05: Redacted Filings in FRCP 5.2(c) Cases ↗
- Order 2026-03: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Order 2025-05: Procedures for the Filing of Sealed Documents ↗
- Amended Order 2021-13: Removal Actions ↗
- Amended Order 2022-04: Social Security Cases ↗
- Second Amended Order 2021-02: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Order 2020-01: Discovery in Criminal Cases ↗
- Order 2018-07: Amicus Briefs ↗
- Order 2018-08: Service of Rule 68 Offers of Judgment ↗
- Second Amended Order 2025-01: Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus—Alien Detainee ↗
- Order 2024-01: Deficiency Notices ↗
How Judge Maddox decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bunker, Maddox certified a question about the Maryland Child Victims Act to the state’s highest court and stayed the case pending its decision.
“This matter will be stayed pending a decision from the Maryland Supreme Court regarding the certified question.”
In the FTC enforcement case, Maddox rejected a shotgun-pleading challenge because the complaint described a coordinated scheme, identified each defendant’s role, and tied counts to conduct.
“The FTC’s Complaint in this case sets forth detailed and clear factual allegations describing a coordinated scheme, delineates the roles of each Defendant, and organizes those allegations into specific counts tied to particular conduct.”
In Oasis, Maddox denied a food supplier’s dismissal motion because alleged assurances about product expiration dates and customer rejections plausibly supported an express-warranty claim.
“The facts in the Complaint suffice to state a plausible claim for breach of express warranty.”
Procedural preferences
In Allen, Maddox dismissed a self-represented plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and gave him 28 days to seek leave to amend, attaching a proposed amended complaint.
“The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.”
In Levy, Maddox denied a request to compel an early Rule 26(f) conference because no scheduling order had issued and the duty to confer had not yet begun.
“Because the duty to confer has not yet been triggered, Levy’s motion to compel a Rule 26(f) conference and for entry of a scheduling order is denied without prejudice.”
In the animal-welfare grant challenge, Maddox found the case moot once the funded studies ended and held that the exception for conduct capable of repetition yet evading review did not apply where the plaintiff had not sought interim relief.
“In sum, the Court finds the instant action to be moot and therefore subject to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
In Wolf v. W.L. Gore, Maddox denied a third pleading amendment after finding that the plaintiffs had known the proposed facts earlier and had given no adequate reason for missing the amendment deadline.
“Plaintiffs offer no good reason for why they failed to include the plaintiff, allegations, and claims reflected in their proposed amendments in any earlier version of their complaint.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“BLET's motion to dismiss (ECF 13) is GRANTED; The Complaint (ECF 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (ECF 26) is DENIED”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Question of Law to the Maryland Supreme Court (ECF No. 13), Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 5.1(b) Certification (ECF No. 26), and Defendants' Motion to Stay (ECF No. 12) will be granted”
“will GRANT Defendants' Motion to Stay following certification of a question”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) will be denied without prejudice to renewal at an appropriate time after the stay is lifted”
“Officer Majkrzak's Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF 42) is GRANTED; Count Three of the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; Count Seven ... is DISMISSED with prejudice as to Officer Majkrzak”
“Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate Plaintiffs' Monell Claim in Count Seven for Discovery and Trial (ECF 41) is DENIED without prejudice”
“Wei's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 109) is granted in part and denied in part ... The portion of Plaintiffs' defamation claim in Count I of the SAC based on Wei's December 2023 statements is dismissed with prejudice ... Wei's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, and his request to certify an interlocutory appeal is denied”
“Liu's Partial Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Count Three of Wei's Counterclaim is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim for relief”
“The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be dismissed ... The Petition must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies”
“the Motion for Injunctive Relief shall be denied ... The motion will be denied because it fails make a clear showing that Figures is likely to succeed on the merits of the claim for relief”
“Truist's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted, and ... dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Truist”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply is granted”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is denied”
“the Court shall grant in part and deny in part the Custody Defendants' Motion to Dismiss”
“and grant PrimeCare's Motion to Dismiss”
“Shellpoint's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice”
“the defendants' motions to dismiss are granted. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice”
“Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is denied”
“Defendants' Motion, treated as a motion to dismiss, will be granted. The Complaint, as supplemented, will be dismissed for failure to state a claim”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 11) is GRANTED; The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 48 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 18 days (N = 8).
- The sampled district docket includes alien-detainee habeas petitions, consumer-communications claims, employment discrimination, contract and insurance disputes, immigration mandamus, pension-fund collection, prisoner medical claims, and federal-officer-removal litigation.
- Because Maddox joined the district bench in late 2023, the completed-case sample remains small and is weighted toward matters that ended quickly.
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 | 21 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 21 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 24 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 17 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 13 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 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 District of Maryland, not for Judge Maddox: 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 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 151 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,564 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 457 | 13.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 19 | 33.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,119 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,370 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,053 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,629 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,469 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,709 | 7.9 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 Maddox with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Maddox, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Maddox's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace