Richard Ernest Myers II
How Judge Myers decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In patent-eligibility disputes Myers will decide Section 101 at the pleading stage when the patent itself supplies the necessary record and claim construction would not change the analysis. In IngenioShare, he treated one claim as representative, separated eligibility from novelty and obviousness, and dismissed all asserted patent claims with prejudice. Practical lesson: identify a concrete technological improvement in the claim language itself; favorable prior-art rulings do not substitute for an inventive concept under Alice.
“The court finds that '810 Claim 1 is representative of all remaining claims for § 101 purposes, the remaining claims of the '810, '038, and '727 patents are also invalid. Finally, the court determines that no claim construction is needed.”
On a motion to suppress a traffic stop, Myers credits an officer's reasonable, good-faith mistake so long as the suspicion was objectively reasonable: reasonable suspicion need not be correct. He upheld a stop premised on a visual window-tint estimate (25% transmission) even though a later light-meter test showed the windows were legal (37%). Practical lesson: a suppression motion premised solely on the officer's estimate turning out to be mistaken is unlikely to succeed if the estimate was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
“The reasonable suspicion inquiry falls considerably short of 51 % accuracy, for, as we have explained, to be reasonable is not to be perfect.”
Procedural preferences
Myers reviews a magistrate judge's Memorandum & Recommendation de novo only as to portions to which a party files a specific, particularized objection; general or conclusory objections, and unobjected-to portions, are reviewed only for clear error and adopted. He overruled the plaintiffs' objection to the magistrate's recommended lodestar hourly rates and adopted the fee award. Practical lesson: object specifically, identify the precise error, and support a contested rate or issue with evidence -- a generalized 'the rate is too low' objection will be overruled and the M&R adopted.
“Absent a specific and timely objection, the court reviews only for ‘clear error’ and need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.”
Cautions
In Section 1983 / constitutional-tort suits Myers enforces Iqbal rigorously: a government official is liable only for his or her OWN misconduct, so naming supervisors on a 'knew or should have known / permitted' theory -- without pleading their own deliberate, causal conduct -- fails and they receive qualified immunity. He also holds discrete discriminatory acts time-barred outside the limitations period and treats stray remarks as insufficient evidence of animus. Practical lesson: plead each defendant's own conduct specifically, mind the limitations clock on discrete acts, and do not rely on supervisory 'permitted'/respondeat-superior theories.
“Plaintiffs allegation that the interim provost and chancellor of the university ‘permitted’ Mountz to engage in the conduct with actual or constructive knowledge is insufficient under Iqbal to demonstrate more than mere respondeat superior.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons explained below, North Carolina's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss [DE 10] and directs the Clerk of Court to close this case.”
“ORDER denying 64 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Charles Anthony Pittman. Signed by Chief Judge Richard E. Myers II on 4/27/2022.”
“This matter comes before the court on Defendant's motion to suppress, filed March 15, 2021. [DE-33] For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion is DENIED.”
“The Board's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record [DE 26] is DENIED, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Attorney's Fees and Costs [DE 29] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the reasons described below, Halcyon's Motion is GRANTED and Echelon's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Accordingly, the Center's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 26] is DENIED, and the Departments' Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 30] is GRANTED.”
“Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss [DE 25]. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 175 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 121.5 days (N = 2).
Nature-of-suit mix observed across the enumerated dockets (2017-2021, both name-string forms). Myers's enumeration is dominated by prisoner-petition and habeas matters ('...-ct-...' prison-conditions/1983, '...-hc-...' 2241/2254 habeas, Section 2255) -- a large share inherited from the seat that had been vacant since 2005 (Malcolm J. Howard's senior-status docket) and terminated by Myers in 2020-2021. Alongside that runs general civil litigation: Social Security appeals (Worsham, Miller, Partin), insurance/diversity contract (Hill, Prosser, Sports Endeavors, Sterling Pharma), employment / civil rights (Harrison v. Syneos Health, Mack v. ECU, Yates v. Town of Wallace, Launching Pad v. Cooper, Johnson v. YPS), and civil drug-forfeiture in-rem cases (US v. $112,570 Currency). He also draws high-profile civil-rights/elections matters (e.g. North Carolina Democratic Party v. NC State Board of Elections, 5:24-cv-00699). Note: an administrative/observational mix from a thin enumeration, not an authoritative caseload baseline.
Put Judge Myers's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Myers actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Myers's own signed orders and cites them.