JoAnna Gibson McFadden
How Judge McFadden rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McFadden
JoAnna Gibson McFadden has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina in Durham since February 2026. Before joining the bench, she clerked for federal District Judge Joseph F. Bianco and served for more than a decade as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Middle District of North Carolina.
Judge McFadden's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge McFadden, 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
Provide requested working copies to the Clerk’s Office within three business days.
“Working Copies: Not required unless requested by the Court. When requested, copies should be provided to the Clerk’s Office within 3 business days.”
Filing
In civil matters, cite the specific page and, where possible, line or paragraph for multi-page exhibits.
“a citation to a multi-page exhibit or to a pleading or brief must contain a pin cite to the specific page and, for exhibits or pleadings and where possible, the line or paragraph number containing the cited material.”
Discovery
Give a specific justification if the proposed discovery period exceeds the chosen track or if requesting the exceptional track.
“the Report must contain specific justification for that additional requested time. Further, the parties shall not request the exceptional discovery track without specific justification.”
Sealing
Support any motion to seal with a knowledgeable witness’s affidavit explaining what is confidential and why.
“An affidavit from a knowledgeable witness explaining what is confidential and why is required.”
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 McFadden decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Shoals Technologies Group v. Voltage, McFadden ordered Voltage to investigate whether its database could produce project-level cost data and to provide that data if it could readily do so.
“The Court therefore orders that Voltage investigate and determine whether it can easily produce the cost data by project by, e.g., generating a report from its internal database.”
Procedural preferences
In USConnect v. Vendors Exchange, McFadden recommended denying a motion to dismiss for claim splitting and consolidating two related actions, even assuming claim splitting had occurred.
“Ultimately, the court need not resolve the claim-splitting question, because even assuming arguendo that this action involves claim-splitting, consolidation, rather than dismissal, is the appropriate remedy.”
In Doe v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, McFadden denied the plaintiff’s request to litigate under a pseudonym. The plaintiff’s asserted risk of retaliation or future employment harm was speculative and did not outweigh public access to the employment discrimination case.
“Doe has not shown ‘extraordinary circumstances’ warranting use of a pseudonym. Doe's stated privacy interests -- avoiding a speculative risk of retaliation and/or adverse actions by future employers -- do not outweigh the public's right of access to judicial proceedings.”
In an expert-disclosure dispute, the judge declined to treat a missed informal deadline as a violation of a court order where all sides had departed from the formal schedule.
“All parties in this case agreed not to comply with the Court’s expert disclosure deadlines, and a failure to adhere to an informal deadline does not trigger the draconian remedies of Rule 37(b).”
Cautions
In Monroe v. Rodriguez, McFadden recommended summary judgment for detention officers after examining the unopposed record, while noting that Monroe's failure to respond alone did not establish the officers' legal entitlement to judgment.
“although Monroe’s failure to respond may leave the defendants’ facts uncontroverted, they ‘must still show that the uncontroverted facts entitle [them] to “a judgment as a matter of law.”’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court GRANTS IN PART Shoals's motion to compel, Docket Entry 216, as follows: Voltage SHALL produce the emails responsive to Shoals's Requests for Production Nos. 8, 12, and 56. In response to Shoals's Interrogatory No. 12, Voltage SHALL specify any facts it will use to show non-willfulness, to the extent such facts exist.”
“Because USConnect has pled facts sufficient to support the claims alleged in Counts Three and Four and Six through Eight, the Court should deny the motion as to those counts. Because USConnect has not pled facts establishing that it was the origin of the goods central to its Lanham Act passing off claim, the Court should grant the motion as to Count Five.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY the defendants' motion to dismiss; IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court GRANT USConnect's motion to consolidate 1:25CV692 and 1:26CV174.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court GRANT Defendants Couzzi, Kluk, and Rodgers’ motion for summary judgment and dismiss the claim against them with prejudice”
“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court GRANT Defendant Joanna Peach’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss the claim against her with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Joanna Peach’s motion to seal is DENIED”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court GRANT the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice, based on lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Brandon Otha Martin’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is upheld.”
“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is upheld.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court GRANT the motion for summary judgment filed under Docket Entry 26.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to seal, Docket Entry 29, is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff in the above-named action be, and is hereby, permitted to file and prosecute said action in this Court without prepayment of fees or giving security therefor”
“The Court DENY AS MOOT the Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry 33”
“Motion to Appoint Counsel, Docket Entry 37, is DENIED AS MOOT”
“Motion for Entry of Default Against Kevin Corigan, Docket Entry 38, is DENIED”
“The Court DENY AS MOOT the Motion to Implement North Carolina’s Waiver of PLRA Affirmative Defense, Docket Entry 40”
“The Court DENY AS MOOT the Rule 56(d) Motion, Docket Entry 41”
“The Court DENY AS MOOT Kevin John Corrigan’s Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry 50”
“Motion for a Court Order for the Jai[l] to Provide Legal Materials/Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Docket Entry 58, is DENIED as to the Order for Legal Materials and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the appointment of counsel”
“Motion for Copies and to have Marshals Effectuate Service upon Defendant’s Counsel Jennifer B. Milak the Amended Complaint with Leave, Docket Entry 59, is GRANTED as to the United States Marshals Service serving Dr. Corrigan with the summons and Second Amended Complaint and otherwise DENIED”
“Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint/Amended Complaint, Docket Entry 61, is GRANTED”
“The Court DENY the Rules 59 and 60 Motion, Docket Entry 63”
“The Court DENY the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)/Preliminary Injunction, Docket Entry 68”
“Motion to Renew Prior Filings Pertaining to Defendant Corrigan, Docket Entry 77, is GRANTED”
“The Motion to Seal, Docket Entry 422, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“The Motion to Seal, Docket Entry 425, is GRANTED.”
“The Motion to Seal, Docket Entry 430, is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Seal, Docket Entry 432, is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed referral docket includes patent, employment, civil-rights, securities, benefits, and prisoner matters. Most newer matters remain at an early stage. A September prisoner case supplied a signed order permitting the plaintiff to proceed without prepaying fees.
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 |
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 McFadden: 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 McFadden with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McFadden, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McFadden's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace