James A. Beaty Jr.

How Judge Beaty rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Beaty no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Position
district
Status
Retired 2018
Served
1994–2018
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1994-10-11
Education
Western Carolina University, B.A. (1971); University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D. (1974)
Signed orders read
27

How Judge Beaty decides

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

What persuades

In Morris, Beaty focused on the objective circumstances of the residential questioning and concluded that the defendant was in custody despite the absence of a formal arrest.

“Defendant was in custody when he was questioned.”

Procedural preferences

In Mabry, Beaty declined to convert a dismissal motion into summary judgment before the pro se plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

“Plaintiff has not had any opportunity for discovery at this point in the litigation, and it would therefore be inappropriate to decide the present motion as a motion for summary judgment at this time.”

Cautions

In Winecoff, Beaty enforced the federal habeas limitations period after it expired before the petitioner began state collateral proceedings.

“subsequent motions or petitions cannot revive a period of limitation that has already run.”

Signed rulings

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

Winecoff v. French
· 2004-11-30
Motions to dismiss (state respondent) Granted

“Respondent’s motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds [Pleading No. 4] be GRANTED”

Petition for writ of habeas corpus (state prisoner) Denied

“Petitioner’s writ of habe-as corpus [Pleading No. 2] be DENIED”

United States v. $10,000.00 in U.S. Currency
· 2004-12-27
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Document #24] is GRANTED.”

Brown v. Langley
· 2004-11-30
Motions to dismiss (state respondent) Granted

“Respondent’s motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds [Pleading No. 4] be GRANTED”

Petition for writ of habeas corpus (state prisoner) Denied

“Petitioner’s writ of habe-as corpus [Pleading No. 1] be DENIED”

Aldridge v. Oxford Apparel, Inc.
· 2004-12-09
Joint motion for settlement approval (all parties) Granted

“joint motion and stipulation for the approval of the November 28, 2003, settlement entered into by the parties for and on behalf of the estate of incompetent John M. Moore, Jr., is hereby GRANTED.”

Motion for relief from judgment (settling party) Moot / procedural

“the pending Rule 60(b) motion filed in file number 1:01CV00335 is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Puckett v. Carter
· 2006-09-26
Motions to dismiss (appointed-defense-counsel defendants) Granted

“the Motion to Dismiss [Document # 16] by Defendants Adams and Bowen will be granted”

Motions to dismiss (prosecutor defendants) Granted

“the Motion to Dismiss [Document #23] by Defendants Bowman and Puckett will also be granted”

United States v. Souder
· 2009-10-16
Motion for judgment of acquittal (criminal defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ Joint Motion for Judgment of Acquittal [1:08CR136: Doc. # 88; L08CR275: Doc. # 112] is hereby GRANTED.”

Motion for new trial (criminal defendants) Granted

“conditionally, Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial [1:08CR136: Doc. # 88; L08CR275: Doc. # 112] is hereby GRANTED.”

Total Renal Care of North Carolina, L.L.C. v. Fresh Market, Inc.
· 2006-10-17
Motions to dismiss (Unifi defendants) Denied

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Unifi Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Document # 15], the Fresh Market Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Document # 28], and Defendant Penn Western’s Motion to Dismiss [Document #25] are DENIED without prejudice to the parties raising the same issues as part of a Motion for Summary Judgment after a limited period for discovery related solely to the issues raised in the Motions.”

Summary judgment (Fresh Market defendants) Denied
Motions to dismiss (Penn Western) Denied
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, given this ruling, Plaintiffs Motion to Strike [Document # 20] and Plaintiffs Motion to Continue [Document #39] will be DENIED AS MOOT.”

Motion to continue (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Whiteside v. UAW Local 3520
· 2008-09-05
Motions to stay (defendant union) Granted

“the Motion to Stay [Document # 23] is GRANTED”

Request for preliminary injunction (plaintiff former employees) Denied

“the Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Document # 4] is DENIED AT THIS TIME”

Larson v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.
· 2007-03-28
Summary judgment (plan defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Document # 16] is GRANTED”

Summary judgment (plaintiff claimant) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Document # 19] is DENIED”

Hanamint Corp., Inc. v. Alliant Marketing Group
· 2007-03-08
Motions to dismiss (Alliant and HCE, LLC) Denied

“Therefore, the Motions to Dismiss by Defendants Alliant and HCE, LLC [Document # 12] and by Defendants CHE, Ltd. and HCE, Ltd. [Document # 20] will be DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (CHE, Ltd. and HCE, Ltd.) Denied
Phillips v. Wood
· 2004-10-27
Motions to dismiss (judicial defendants) Granted

“Defendants Wood, Helms and Graybeal’s motions to dismiss will be GRANTED”

Daye v. Potter
· 2005-04-12
Motion for extension of time (plaintiff employee) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond [Document # 16], which was filed more than three months after Plaintiffs Response was due, is DENIED.”

Motion to dismiss or summary judgment (Postmaster General) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [Document # 9] is GRANTED”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The five sampled terminated matters included one interstate-commerce case, one bankruptcy appeal, two disability-benefits cases, and one habeas matter. Administrative closing data were available, but no electronic entry timelines existed for motion or timing analysis.

A historical record

Judge Beaty no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.