David Alan Bragdon
How Judge Bragdon rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bragdon
David Alan Bragdon is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Bragdon received a commission on December 12, 2025.
Judge Bragdon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bragdon, 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.
Key rules
Filing
Submit working copies of all pleadings in patent and trademark cases to the Clerk’s Office within two business days of filing.
“Working Copies: All pleadings in patent and trademark cases shall be submitted to the Clerk’s Office within 2 business days of filing the original.”
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).
- Standing Order 10 — Issuance of Subpoenas to Pro Se Litigants ↗
- Standing Order 17 — Sealing of Medical Records Related to Compassionate Release Motions ↗
- Amended Standing Order 18 — Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order 20 — Criminal Case Management ↗
- Standing Order 32 — Criminal Cover Sheet ↗
- Standing Order 40 — Clerk Authority to Grant Certain Motions and Judgments ↗
- Amended Standing Order 41 — Sealed Documents ↗
How Judge Bragdon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Distinguishes habeas petitions from civil-rights suits by asking whether the claim attacks the fact or duration of confinement rather than the conditions of confinement.
“Claims that challenge the fact or duration of confinement are brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, whereas claims related to the conditions of confinement should be pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or in a Bivens action.”
Procedural preferences
In Connell v. State of North Carolina, he found that the plaintiff's 48-page filing did not address the recommendation's failure-to-state-a-claim ground.
“In his 48-page filing, Connell raises a number of issues, ranging from Old English common law to Roman and Dutch law, but never addresses the assertion that he failed to state a claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
The court adopted an unopposed screening recommendation and dismissed the action with prejudice after concluding the recommendation contained no clear error. The order states: "this action is dismissed with prejudice."
The court adopted a recommendation and dismissed the action with prejudice because the plaintiff's lengthy objection never addressed the identified pleading defect. The order states that the objection "never addresses the assertion that he failed to state a claim."
The court adopted an unopposed screening recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order states: "this action is dismissed without prejudice."
The court adopted an unopposed recommendation to dismiss a frivolous action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order states: "this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE."
“this action is dismissed without prejudice”
Based on a joint status report, the court continued a stay during a Federal Circuit appeal and directed another report after the appellate process. The order states that the stay shall "remain in place."
“the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
Following statutory screening, the court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation. The signed order states: ‘the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (D.E. 11) is adopted and this action is dismissed without prejudice.’ No party motion was resolved.
“The motion to withdraw the complaint (D.E. 3) is GRANTED, and the complaint (D.E. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant Dennis’ Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 23) is GRANTED and all claims against him are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 64) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“the Court DENIES Frazier’s motion for a preliminary injunction (D.E. 43)”
“DENIES Frazier’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (D.E. 47)”
“DENIES Frazier’s motion to attach exhibits to the complaint (D.E. 48).”
“the Court GRANTS Duke University’s Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 10) pursuant to Rules 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) for insufficient process and insufficient service of process. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs’ and CitiMortgage’s Consent Motion to Stay (D.E. 21) is GRANTED, and this action is STAYED pending resolution of the related appeal currently before the North Carolina Court of Appeals.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (D.E. 22) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This motion may be renewed, if appropriate, after the stay of the action is lifted and in a manner consistent with this Opinion and Order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 106 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 10 days (N = 17).
The early docket combines newly filed cases with matters inherited from predecessor judges. Employment, civil-rights, intellectual-property, commercial, prisoner, habeas, and criminal matters all appear in the current assignment set, with new cases indexed through August 3, 2026.
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 | 2 |
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 for the Middle District of North Carolina, not for Judge Bragdon: 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 | 590 | 8.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 377 | 7.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 189 | 9.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 20 | 21 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 590 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 679 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 642 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 615 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 643 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 569 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 615 | 11.4 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 Bragdon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bragdon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bragdon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace