Ronnie Lee White
How Judge White rules, drawn from 4 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge White no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge White
Ronnie Lee White was a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge White received a commission on July 17, 2014. Judge White retired on July 31, 2024.
How Judge White decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Young’s Rule 41(g) case, Judge White held that the property-return claim accrued at the criminal judgment and dismissed the complaint under the six-year limitations period; Young’s later litigation choices did not postpone accrual.
“The potential for delay based on the claimant's litigating decisions does not change the fact that a claim for return of property was available—and thus accrued—at the time of judgment.”
Procedural preferences
In Ramirez’s employment case, Judge White did not consider facts added only in opposition to a dismissal motion and left the disputed comparator issue for summary judgment. He denied dismissal of the disparate-treatment claim while dismissing other claims.
“The Court does not consider facts not alleged in the Complaint in deciding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”
In the property-tax case, Judge White denied the plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) continuance because his affidavit listed general discovery topics without explaining how they would rebut the county defendants’ summary-judgment showing.
“the Court finds that the affidavit lacks the specificity required by Rule 56(d).”
Cautions
In Ramirez v. Coca-Cola Co., White dismissed the self-represented plaintiff’s retaliation and racial harassment claims for insufficient pleaded facts, while allowing the disparate treatment and constructive discharge claims to proceed.
“The Court does find Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to plausible state claims of harassment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.”
In Ramirez v. Coca-Cola Co., the plaintiff filed two opposition memoranda where the local rule allowed one. The court considered the filings in that case but warned that future submissions violating the local rules would be stricken.
“Plaintiff must follow the applicable rules of this Court. In the future, the Court will strike Plaintiff’s filings that do not comply with the Local Rules.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States of America's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF No. 8).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Coca-Cola Company of North America's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims of retaliation and racial harassment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. (ECF No. 27)”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by Defendants John Ramsey; WMAC 2013, LLC; WMAC 2014, LLC; Richard Robinson; Carlton Black; Michael DeLuca; Chad Cooper; Invest Services, LLC; Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB; and Deed Co. LLC (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants St. Louis County Collector of Revenue; Ashley Greely, employee of St. Louis County Department of Revenue; Richard Robinson, Manager of Revenue Services as an employee of St. Louis County Department of Revenue and Mark Devore, Collector of Revenue for St. Louis County Department of Revenue (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance Pursuant to Rule 56(d) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Rule 16 Order (ECF No. 66) is DENIED as MOOT.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's 'Motion for a Retrial' (ECF No. 20), construed as a motion under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., is DENIED.”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge White was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2024.
| 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 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| 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.
A historical record
Judge White no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.