Bradley W. Rath
How Judge Rath rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rath
Bradley W. Rath is a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. He earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from Mississippi State University and a law degree from the University of Mississippi School of Law in 2000. Before joining the federal bench, he practiced law on the Gulf Coast and served as a municipal judge for several Mississippi cities.
Judge Rath's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Rath'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 Rath decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Carrigg v. Nelson, he granted summary judgment for failure to exhaust prison remedies because the plaintiff filed suit before the grievance process was complete.
“Exhaustion must be completed prior to filing suit; it may not be excused if exhaustion is achieved while the suit is pending.”
In Huskey v. Bonner, he found the prisoner had exhausted available remedies after prison officials improperly rejected the grievance at screening, and let the deliberate-indifference claim proceed past summary judgment.
“Huskey exhausted administrative remedies because his request for an administrative remedy was improperly rejected during the screening phase of MDOC's Administrative Remedy Program (‘ARP’), and material factual disputes preclude summary judgment on the merits.”
Procedural preferences
In Holloway v. Middlebrooks, he severed a prisoner's unrelated claims into three separate civil actions rather than adjudicating them together.
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this civil action shall be SEVERED into three individual actions, and each shall be stamped filed as of the date of this Order, which will be for administrative purposes only.”
In Holloway v. Middlebrooks, Rath granted three requests to extend the prisoner's deadline to respond to a summary judgment motion. In the third order, he set a December 15, 2023 deadline and stated that no further extensions would be granted.
“With this extension, Plaintiff has had over six months to respond to the pending dispositive motion. No further extensions of time will be granted.”
Cautions
In Favre v. Harrison County, Mississippi, he resolved related summary-judgment motions differently across defendants and legal theories, granting some claims and allowing others to proceed.
“the law-enforcement Defendants' Motion [84] for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies will be denied. Harrison County's Motion [86] for Summary Judgment, also based on the exhaustion of administrative remedies, will be granted in part and denied in part. The law-enforcement Defendants' Motion [89] for Summary Judgment and Immunity will be granted.”
In Crump v. Evans, he dismissed a time-barred Section 1983 claim as legally frivolous while treating the plaintiff's voluntarily abandoned claims separately.
“Crump's Section 1983 claim relating to an assault in late 2015 or late 2016 is thus time-barred and should be dismissed as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint [1] is dismissed with prejudice and the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.”
“Defendant Warden Floyd Spotts's Motion [41] for Summary Judgment Based on Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies is GRANTED. This civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Motion [37] for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants Jackson County, Mississippi; Paralegal Leighann Roush; and Sheriff John Ledbetter is GRANTED. ... Plaintiff Tommy Vu's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“the Court finds that Plaintiff's Dispositive and Dispositive Facts Motion [45] should be denied”
“Defendants' Motion [50] for Summary Judgment should be granted. Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice, and this case should be closed.”
“the Motion [30] for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Mike Ezell and Jackson County, Mississippi, is GRANTED. This civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Nelson's Motion [36] for Summary Judgment should be granted and this civil action should be dismissed with prejudice.”
“denying as moot 39 Motion to Amend/Correct Jury Demand”
“ORDER AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND DISMISSING THIS CASE WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies [33] should be granted and the remaining claims against the remaining Defendants dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff did not exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit.”
“ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey the Court's Orders and to prosecute.”
“the Court finds that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. Huskey exhausted administrative remedies because his request for an administrative remedy was improperly rejected during the screening phase of MDOC's Administrative Remedy Program (‘ARP’), and material factual disputes preclude summary judgment on the merits.”
“the law-enforcement Defendants' Motion [84] for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies will be denied.”
“Harrison County's Motion [86] for Summary Judgment, also based on the exhaustion of administrative remedies, will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“The law-enforcement Defendants' Motion [89] for Summary Judgment and Immunity will be granted.”
“Harrison County's Motion [96] for Summary Judgment, also based on the merits of Plaintiff's claims, will be granted.”
“Jones's Motion [108] for Summary Judgment, based on the exhaustion of administrative remedies and the merits of Plaintiff's claims, will be granted.”
“ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey the Court's Orders and to prosecute.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 220 days (N = 11).
- Judge Rath's sampled caseload is dominated by his consent civil docket: prisoner Section 1983 suits involving conditions of confinement, excessive force, medical care, due process, and religious practice, along with Social Security disability appeals.
- It also includes removed contract and products-liability cases and criminal-duty matters such as initial appearances, detention hearings, and forfeiture actions.
- Several prisoner cases were inherited from a predecessor magistrate or reassigned from the district's chief judge when Rath took the bench in August 2022.
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 |
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 Southern District of Mississippi, not for Judge Rath: 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 | 1,034 | 9.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 613 | 8.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 385 | 9.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 26 | 21 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 21.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,034 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 988 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 972 | 11 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,139 | 11.9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,061 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,605 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,094 | 9.3 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 Rath with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rath, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rath's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace