Timothy J. Sullivan
How Judge Sullivan rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sullivan
Timothy J. Sullivan joined the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland as a magistrate judge in December 2012. He previously practiced law in the College Park and Greenbelt area and became chief magistrate judge in 2023.
Judge Sullivan's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Sullivan'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 Sullivan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Poe v. Wal-Mart, Sullivan granted defense summary judgment because the plaintiff lacked evidence of actual or constructive notice and Maryland law did not recognize the proposed mode-of-operation theory.
“Walmart's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.”
In Patterson v. Howard Memorial Hospital, Sullivan granted the employer summary judgment because the plaintiff did not establish causation or pretext on her disability-discrimination and retaliation claims.
“HMR's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38) will be granted, and judgment will be entered in favor of HMR.”
In Mason v. 7-Eleven, Sullivan granted the franchisor summary judgment because the franchisee was an independent contractor over which the franchisor lacked the right of control required for agency liability.
“7-Eleven's Motion (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.”
Cautions
In Rush v. O'Malley, Sullivan affirmed the benefits decision because substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's residual-functional-capacity finding.
“the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) will be GRANTED.”
In Niccole N., Sullivan remanded a benefits denial because the balance restriction in the residual-functional-capacity finding could not be reconciled with light-work standing requirements. He left the ultimate disability determination to the agency.
“Under that standard, I will deny both motions and remand the case for further proceedings.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“HMR's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38) will be granted, and judgment will be entered in favor of HMR.”
“Walmart's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.”
“WMATA's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.”
“Wal-Mart's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED.”
“Mr. Barber's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) will be DENIED, and the Acting Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) will be GRANTED.”
“the Acting Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) will be GRANTED.”
“Brewer M.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) will be DENIED, and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) will be GRANTED.”
“the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) will be GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 52) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED.”
“Exhibit (ECF No. 41) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at the appropriate time.”
“Mr. Goldstein’s Motion (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED.”
“WMATA’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.”
“the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 315 days (N = 18).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 81 days (N = 1).
- The sampled consent caseload includes personal-injury and motor-vehicle negligence actions, employment-discrimination claims, Social Security disability appeals, multiemployer-benefit-fund collections, insurance disputes, and removed contract and consumer matters.
- Transit-authority and other personal-injury cases are prominent in the sample, while the reviewed benefits appeals generally lasted about ten to fourteen months.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Sullivan: 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 Sullivan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sullivan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sullivan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace