James E. Gates
How Judge Gates rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gates
James E. Gates took office as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina in January 2006. He retired from full-time service in April 2020 and continues to serve part time on recall. Before joining the court, he practiced business litigation in Raleigh and clerked for United States District Judge Frank W. Bullock Jr.
Judge Gates's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gates, 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.
- Practice Preferences ↗
- 13-JP-1-JG: Text-Searchable Social Security Records ↗
- 14-JP-1-JG: Misdemeanor Proceedings at Fort Bragg, VA Fayetteville and Sunny Point ↗
- 14-JP-2-JG: Penalty Sheets ↗
Key rules
Filing
Documents of at least 20 pages require a stapled, three-hole-punched courtesy copy.
“The filer shall provide a courtesy copy of all documents containing twenty (20) or more pages, including attachments or exhibits. All courtesy copies should be stapled and three-hole punched.”
Filing
The Commissioner must file a searchable administrative record in covered Social Security appeals before Judge Gates.
“The Commiss ioner shall file a text-searchable copy of the administr ative record in every Social Security appeal,”
Filing
Government penalty sheets in criminal cases before Judge Gates must cite the statutory basis for each listed penalty.
“the penalty sheets submitted by the USAO shall state for each penalty listed, including but not limited to the term of imprisonment, fine, period of supervised release, and period of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release, the specific statutory provisions (including all applicable subparts) authorizing such penalty.”
Motions
In covered misdemeanor cases, more than six continuances require a showing of exceptional circumstances at a hearing.
“No more than six continuances will be allowed a defendant without the defendant's counsel or, if pro se, the defendant personally demonstrating to the court's satisfaction at a hearing that exceptional circumstances warrant a further continuance.”
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 Gates decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In North Carolina Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Leake, Gates calculated a Section 1988 fee award using reasonable hours and rates. He reduced the request where plaintiffs had not shown that work in the earlier Jackson litigation was necessary to the successful case.
“The lodestar amount is determined by multiplying the number of reasonable hours by a reasonable rate. ... The court must exclude from the fees allowed any hours which are 'excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.'”
In Martin v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, Gates granted a motion to compel and denied a protective order after the defendant failed to justify its discovery objections or show undue burden from a corporate deposition.
“The party resisting discovery bears the burden of establishing the legitimacy of its objections.”
Procedural preferences
In United States ex rel. Hendrickson Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Tyler Construction Group, Inc., Gates rejected the plaintiff’s claim that a statement in the defendants’ brief established liability at summary judgment. Counsel’s statement in a brief was not evidence.
“a concession by counsel in a brief does not amount to evidence sufficient to support or oppose a summary judgment motion.”
In United States ex rel. Hendrickson Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Tyler Construction Group, Inc., Gates denied the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion because its criticism of the defendants’ delay evidence did not establish the absence of a genuine factual dispute.
“Hendrickson's criticisms, though, are not a substitute for the showing, it had the burden of making, that there are no disputes of material fact.”
Cautions
Preserve evidence once litigation is foreseeable. Continuing to destroy plainly relevant documents under a routine retention policy, without a litigation hold, exposes a party to spoliation sanctions including an adverse-inference instruction.
“once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a 'litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Hendrickson has thus failed to show with respect to any of its claims or Tyler's counterclaim that there are no genuine disputes of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hendrickson's motion for summary judgment must therefore be denied in its entirety.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be allowed in the amount of $52,426.91.”
“the court finds that the sanction of an adverse inference instruction to the jury is warranted, subject to the ultimate authority of the presiding judge over trial proceedings.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the motion to compel will be allowed and motion for protective order will be denied.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is therefore GRANTED, and the court directs that judgment be entered DISMISSING this case with prejudice.”
“For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion to dismiss will be allowed, and plaintiff's motion to amend will be denied.”
“it is ORDERED that plaintiff's summary judgment motion (D.E. 48) as to defendant Diana Kopelman is ALLOWED and as to defendant Mark Kopelman is denied without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's motion to strike (D.E. 54) as to defendant Diana Kopelman is DENIED AS MOOT and as to defendant Mark Kopelman is denied without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion to compel (D.E. 24) is DENIED.”
“Here, by order entered 12 January 2016 (D.E. 30), the court allowed plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (D.E. 26) and remanded this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g).”
“It is therefore ORDERED that: 1. The Commissioner shall pay $5,500.00 in attorney's fees associated with this case in full satisfaction of any and all claims arising under the EAJA.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion by the United States to quash (D.E. 43) is ALLOWED and the subpoena is QUASHED.”
“plaintiffs motion (D.E. 17) for judgment on the pleadings be DENIED, and the Commissioner's final decision be AFFIRMED.”
“plaintiff’s motion will be denied, and the final decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 481 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 168 days (N = 2).
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 |
| 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina (Raleigh), not for Judge Gates: 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 | 1,130 | 8.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 640 | 8.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 486 | 8.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 2 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,130 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,093 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 967 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 884 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 864 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 802 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 950 | 9.4 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 Gates with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gates, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gates's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace