Robert B. Jones, Jr.
How Judge Jones rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jones
Robert B. Jones Jr. was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina in 2007 and maintains chambers in Wilmington. Before joining the court, he practiced civil litigation in Raleigh and Wilmington and clerked for Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. of the Sixth Circuit. He earned degrees from Davidson College and Campbell University School of Law.
Judge Jones's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Jones, 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-RJ: Text-Searchable Social Security Records ↗
- 14-JP-2-RJ: Penalty Sheets ↗
Key rules
Filing
A misdemeanor defendant’s written waiver of appearance must include the statements required by Local Criminal Rule 43.1.
“a defendant’s written waiver of appearance shall include the statements contained in Local Criminal Rule 43.1, as applicable.”
Filing
The Commissioner must file a text-searchable administrative record in covered Social Security appeals before Judge Jones when the existing record is not searchable.
“The Commissioner shall file a text-searchable copy of the administrative record in every Social Security appeal, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) or § 1383(c)(3)/”
Filing
In criminal cases before Judge Jones, government penalty sheets must cite the statutory provision 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.”
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 Jones decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In McGlothlen, Jones affirmed the disability denial after finding that the claimant identified no evidence that a hearing continuance would have added or that could have changed the result.
“To establish prejudice, a claimant must demonstrate that he or she could and would have adduced evidence that might have altered the result. ... Here, Claimant points to no evidentiary gaps that resulted in unfairness or prejudice to Claimant.”
In Hernandez-Aguilar, Jones recommended denying a motion to dismiss an illegal-reentry indictment because the cited regulations governed immigration-court jurisdiction; the district judge adopted his recommendation.
“The Court finds that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 and § 1003.15 -not 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) and Pereira's interpretation of that statutory provision-control when and how subject matter jurisdiction vests in an immigration court.”
In Lee, Jones remanded because the administrative law judge selectively described medical evidence when evaluating symptoms and medical opinions, preventing meaningful review.
“the ALJ mischaracterized and cherrypicked the record”
Procedural preferences
In McGlothlen, Jones rejected a challenge to the ALJ’s handling of the hearing record because the represented claimant identified no prejudicial evidentiary gap.
“Claimant has not provided a factual foundation upon which the court can perceive a gap in the evidentiary record that is prejudicial to Claimant.”
In Taylor, Jones granted a consent motion to remand a Social Security appeal under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
“ORDER granting 21 Motion to Remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 8/1/2022.”
In Koukuntla, Jones said the good-faith communication requirement serves the orderly resolution of discovery disputes; the plaintiff’s earlier preservation letter did not satisfy it.
“This good faith communication requirement is not merely technical but promotes the orderly resolution of discovery disputes.”
Cautions
A request for default does not bypass service or pleading requirements. In Edge, Jones recommended denying default-related relief where service was incomplete and the complaint itself failed to state a viable claim.
“it is recommended that the motion to default be denied due to lack of service, the motion for the U.S. Marshals to serve Defendants be denied, and the motion to expedite be denied as moot.”
In Jenkins, Jones remanded after finding that the administrative law judge discounted the claimant’s need for an assistive device in part because of a treatment gap without examining why the gap existed.
“Claimant's lack of treatment without exploring the reasons therefor”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Claimant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-25] is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE-27] is ALLOWED”
“Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any evidence of spoliation beyond mere speculation and has failed to demonstrate prejudice, Plaintiff's motion to compel preservation, [DE-37], and motion to appoint a forensic expert, [DE-42], are denied.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to expedite, [DE-36], is denied as moot.”
“For the reasons stated above, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and Plaintiff's motion for the U.S. Marshals to serve several Defendants, motion for default judgment (construed as motion of default), and motion to expedite be DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the reasons stated herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment [DE-20] be DENIED.”
“remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order.”
“For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Commissioner is affirmed.”
“For the reasons stated above, the final decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.”
“matter is remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“For the reasons stated above, the final decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 243 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 5 days (N = 1).
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 (Wilmington), not for Judge Jones: 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 Jones with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jones, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jones's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace