Terrence William Boyle

United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 14 signed orders read

How Judge Boyle decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On APA record review of an agency's Endangered Species Act / NEPA decision he will grant conservation plaintiffs summary judgment in part where the agency's change in management approach was arbitrary or failed the statutory requirements.

“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [DE 79] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' third claim for relief is DISMISSED as MOOT, and plaintiffs' are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on their remaining claims.”

Even before Bostock he denied an employer's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment against a transgender applicant's Title VII claim, allowing the sex-discrimination theory to proceed.

“For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss [DE 12] and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment [DE 18] are DENIED.”

Cautions

He dismisses ADA Title III architectural-barrier suits by serial "tester" plaintiffs who lack a plausible intent to return -- for example a plaintiff who visited a business once and lives hundreds of miles away.

“the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Claims are DISMISSED in their entirety.”

At summary judgment, Boyle treats an unaddressed argument as conceded and will not assemble a plaintiff's prima facie case from the record. A response should identify the asserted adverse action, comparators, and hostile-environment evidence claim by claim.

“Plaintiff's response in opposition [DE 109] failed to address and waived these issues.”

Repeated refusal to participate in discovery can produce dismissal with prejudice under Rule 37. In Koukuntla, Boyle found bad faith, prejudice, a need for deterrence, and that lesser sanctions would be ineffective after ignored orders, a missed deposition, and duplicative filings.

“Accordingly, the Court deems dismissal with prejudice the appropriate sanction for plaintiff's conduct in this case.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Wilson v. Thomas
5:13-cv-00713 (E.D.N.C.; 43 F. Supp. 3d 628) · 2014-08-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. The matter may proceed in its entirety.”

Lewis v. High Point Regional Health System
5:13-cv-00838 (E.D.N.C.; 79 F. Supp. 3d 588) · 2015-01-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss [DE 12] and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment [DE 18] are DENIED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Retfalvi v. Commissioner
5:16-cv-00149 (E.D.N.C.; 216 F. Supp. 3d 648) · 2016-10-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss [DE 14] is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and to close the file.”

Franklin Livestock, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc.
5:14-cv-00838 (E.D.N.C.; 251 F. Supp. 3d 962) · 2017-04-18
Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted in part

“For the following reasons, defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.”

Red Wolf Coalition v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2:15-cv-00042 (E.D.N.C.; 346 F. Supp. 3d 802) · 2018-11-04
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [DE 79] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' third claim for relief is DISMISSED as MOOT, and plaintiffs' are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on their remaining claims.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' motion for summary judgment [DE 85] is GRANTED IN PART as to plaintiffs' third claim for relief and DENIED IN PART as to plaintiffs' remaining claims.”

Gonzalez v. Cissna
5:18-cv-00309 (E.D.N.C.; 364 F. Supp. 3d 579) · 2019-03-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“defendants' motion to stay the answer deadline [DE 11] and first motion to dismiss [DE 13] are DENIED AS MOOT”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“defendants' second motion to dismiss [DE 20] is GRANTED, and the motions to seal [DE 15, 22, 27] are GRANTED.”

Team 7, LLC v. Protective Solutions, Inc.
5:08-cv-00... (E.D.N.C.; 759 F. Supp. 2d 698) · 2010-12-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Protective Defendants' motion [DE 61] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“BST and Pittman's motion [DE 58] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs' motion [DE 63] is DENIED.”

Stockton v. Wake County
5:14-cv-00... (E.D.N.C.; 173 F. Supp. 3d 292) · 2016-03-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the court grants Wake County's motion for summary judgment solely as to count five of the complaint ... and denies the remaining motions.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the court grants Wake County's motion for summary judgment solely as to count five ... and denies the remaining motions.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the court ... denies the remaining motions.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
Motion to withdraw (defendant) Granted

“the court grants ... Buckner's motion to withdraw”

Greater Carolina Ear Nose & Throat, P.A. v. Azar
5:18-cv-00... (E.D.N.C.; 334 F. Supp. 3d 739) · 2018-07-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“defendant's motion to dismiss [DE 13] is GRANTED. As this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's complaint”

Motion for tro (plaintiff) Denied

“the motion for temporary restraining order [DE 2] is DENIED.”

EEOC v. Thompson Contracting, Grading, Paving, & Utilities, Inc.
5:08-cv-00... (E.D.N.C.; 793 F. Supp. 2d 738) · 2011-06-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Court grants Defendant Summary Judgment.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“This matter is before the Court on both parties' Motions for Summary Judgment. The Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.”

Williamson v. Carolina Power and Light Co.
5:10-cv-00... (E.D.N.C.; 754 F. Supp. 2d 787) · 2010-11-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Harty v. Luihn Four, Inc.
5:10-cv-00... (E.D.N.C.; 747 F. Supp. 2d 547) · 2010-10-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Claims are DISMISSED in their entirety.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 378 days (N = 9).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 149.5 days (N = 2).

Nature-of-suit mix observed across the filed-2021 enumeration and the June-2026 pending window. Like the E.D.N.C. docket generally, Boyle's enumeration carries a large prisoner-petition / habeas component ('...-ct-...' prison-conditions/1983, '...-hc-...' 2241/2254 habeas -- E.D.N.C. houses FCI Butner, driving a heavy federal civil-commitment/habeas caseload) and criminal ('...-cr-...') matters, alongside general civil litigation: Social Security disability appeals (Jenkins/Snider v. Kijakazi), civil rights / employment (Chestnutt v. Town of Ahoskie Title VII sex discrimination), patent (Lenovo v. Liberty Patents), diversity personal-injury / wrongful death (DeMontpellier v. Chicamacomico Banks Fire Dept, tried to a jury), insurance/product-liability, and consumer-protection / debt-collection (June-2026: Vanhoozier v. American Coradius (FDCPA), Hannan v. Carmax, Moran v. Riccobene DDS). Note: an observational mix from thin enumerated windows, not an authoritative caseload baseline.

Put Judge Boyle's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Boyle actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Boyle's own signed orders and cites them.