Robert T. Numbers, II
How Judge Numbers rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Numbers
Robert T. Numbers II was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina on December 8, 2014, and maintains chambers in Raleigh. He previously practiced federal civil rights and commercial litigation in North Carolina. He earned degrees from Wake Forest University and the University of Notre Dame Law School.
Judge Numbers's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Numbers, 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.
- 14-JP-2-RN: Penalty Sheets ↗
- 14-JP-3-RN: Text-Searchable Social Security Transcripts ↗
- 21-JP-1-RN: Misdemeanor Proceedings at Fort Bragg and VA Fayetteville ↗
Key rules
Filing
Government penalty sheets in criminal cases before Judge Numbers 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.”
Filing
For Social Security appeals before Judge Numbers, the Commissioner must file a searchable administrative transcript when the certified copy is not searchable.
“The Commissioner shall file a text searchable copy of the transcript in every Social Security appeal, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) or § 1383(c)(3), that is reassigned to the undersigned for entry of judgment with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) or in which a motion for judgment on the pleadings or any other potentially dispositive motion is referred to the undersigned by the presiding district judge for a memorandum and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) in which the certified copy of the transcript filed or to be filed is not text searchable.”
Motions
In covered misdemeanor cases, continuance requests generally must be filed at least one week before the court date.
“Without extenuating circumstances, any requests to continue a scheduled court date must be filed no later than one week before the scheduled court date.”
Trial
In covered misdemeanor cases, defendant and defense counsel must appear until a continuance is granted.
“Until the court grants a motion to continue, both the defendant and defense counsel are expected to be present at the scheduled time.”
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 Numbers decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals, Numbers has recommended remand when the administrative law judge discounted a claimant's Department of Veterans Affairs disability rating without the substantial consideration required by governing precedent.
“mindful of the joint purpose and evidentiary requirements for a disability finding by both the VA and the SSA, such a finding fails to properly consider the disability determination of another agency as required in light of the Bird decision.”
In Watson v. Colvin, Numbers remanded after finding that the ALJ selectively relied on part of treating podiatrist Dr. Seavers’ opinion while overlooking its functional and diagnostic findings.
“Here, however, the ALJ selectively extracted part of Dr. Seavers’ opinion as a basis to discredit it.”
In Chavis v. Colvin, Numbers affirmed the Commissioner’s decision because the claimant’s non-exertional limitations did not significantly erode the occupational base and vocational expert testimony was unnecessary at step five.
“testimony from a VE was not required at step five, Chavis’s arguments to the contrary are without merit and are rejected.”
Procedural preferences
Numbers construes self-represented pleadings liberally and has allowed a final opportunity to perfect service instead of immediately recommending dismissal.
“pleadings by pro se parties are not held to the same exacting standard as those that apply to represented parties. Courts must give pleadings by pro se parties a liberal construction, considering their lack of formal legal training.”
In Huang v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Numbers reviewed the evidence and applicable law despite the plaintiffs’ failure to oppose summary judgment. He then granted State Farm’s motion on the negligent misrepresentation and unfair trade practices claims because no genuine material factual dispute remained.
“the court does not automatically grant an uncontested motion for summary judgment. ... Instead, the court must still determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Develop your arguments: perfunctory, undeveloped arguments are waived, even (especially) for represented parties.
“'it is not the obligation of this court to research and construct legal arguments open to parties, especially when they are represented by counsel,' and 'perfunctory and undeveloped arguments . . . are waived.'”
For a nonparty subpoena dispute, Numbers kept the matter in the compliance court when the remaining deposition-duration issue was routine and no exceptional circumstance justified transfer. He denied a three-hour limit where the nonparty did not show undue burden or duplication.
“the issues involved in the motion to quash are routine.”
Cautions
Numbers imposed Rule 11 sanctions where counsel repeatedly failed to read and follow the court's orders in full.
“The Court assumes that Calloway-Durham failed to read it in its entirety too.”
In Mayo v. Rocky Mount Police Department, Numbers rejected an argument that the statute of limitations deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that the defendants misrepresented the holding of a case they cited.
“This argument misrepresents the holding in Brown.”
Do not file a meritless, dilatory motion. An eve-of-trial motion to dismiss with no chance of success, filed to delay, drew Rule 11(b)(1)/(b)(2) sanctions against counsel and joint liability for her government employer.
“By filing that motion, Calloway-Durham violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ... These arguments lacked any chance of success, and a reasonable attorney would have recognized that shortcoming. The Court further concludes that she filed the motion to unnecessarily delay trial.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [D.E. 23] is GRANTED, that the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [D.E. 26] is DENIED and that the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings.”
“the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [D.E. 26] is DENIED and that the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings.”
“Chavis's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (D.E. 30) is denied, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (D.E. 32) is granted, and Commissioner's decision is affirmed.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (D.E. 32) is granted, and Commissioner's decision is affirmed.”
“For the foregoing reasons, State Farm's Motion to Dismiss is granted.”
“State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the Huangs' claims for negligent misrepresentation and unfair and deceptive trade practices are dismissed.”
“the undersigned recommends that the District Court dismiss the Rocky Mount Community Corrections Judicial Center Probation Department and Johnson and Parris in their official capacities from this case. The rest of the motion should be denied.”
“Craft is entitled to summary judgment on all of Mayo's claims.”
“But the Probation Defendants are only entitled to summary judgment on some of Mayo's claims.”
In a 43-page sua sponte Rule 11 sanctions order issued after a show-cause process, Numbers found that North Carolina Department of Justice attorney Sonya Calloway-Durham violated Rule 11(b)(1) and (b)(2) by filing an eve-of-trial third motion to dismiss with no chance of success and for the purpose of delaying trial, and held the department jointly liable under Rule 11(c)(1). The court formally admonished the attorney and department, required her federal filings for one year to be co-signed by someone attesting to Rule 11 compliance, referred a potential disability issue to the state bar, and ordered the Attorney General to report on corrective steps. This sanctions process was initiated by the court rather than by a party motion. Grounding quote: 'By filing that motion, Calloway-Durham violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ... These arguments lacked any chance of success, and a reasonable attorney would have recognized that shortcoming. The Court further concludes that she filed the motion to unnecessarily delay trial. ... To address these violations and deter similar conduct, the Court imposes the following sanctions. First, it formally admonishes both Calloway-Durham and NCDOJ. Second, the Court will require that, for the next year, all of Calloway-Durham's filings in federal court must be co-signed by someone who will attest that the filing complies with Rule 11.'
“ORDER granting 19 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying 25 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 08/13/2015.”
“MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 21 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 23 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Commissioner's final decision is remanded for further consideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 1/4/2016.”
“MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 27 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Commissioner's final decision is affirmed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 12/16/2015.”
“ORDER denying 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 32 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 3/27/2015.”
“MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 34 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 39 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Commissioner's final decision is affirmed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 1/4/2016.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 461 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 135 days (N = 13).
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 Numbers: 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 Numbers with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Numbers, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Numbers's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace