Joe L. Webster
How Judge Webster rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Webster no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Webster
Joe L. Webster served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina from November 2012 until his retirement in February 2026. He was the first African American to hold that position in the district. He earned undergraduate and law degrees from Howard University and a Master of Laws in Judicial Studies from Duke University.
How Judge Webster decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Olson v. Kijakazi, he recommended remand after finding that the ALJ had discounted depression symptoms in a way the Fourth Circuit later rejected in Shelley C.
“In Shelley C., the Fourth Circuit held for the first time that depression is a disease that does not produce objective medical evidence, and therefore subjective statements regarding its symptoms cannot be discounted based on objective medical evidence (or lack thereof).”
Procedural preferences
In Ewing v. Vigus, he found that the plaintiff had fewer than three qualifying prior dismissals and could proceed in forma pauperis.
“Ultimately, then, since the Plaintiff does not have three strikes, he is not barred from proceeding in forma pauperis by the PLRA.”
In Williams v. Future Foam, Webster found that the plaintiff had not shown good cause for late service but recommended a discretionary Rule 4(m) extension. The defendants had received proper service before the recommendation, and a dismissal would likely time bar the claims; Webster warned that further disregard of service rules would have consequences.
“Thus, the undersigned will recommend that the Court exercise its discretion under Rule 4(m) to extend the service deadline to October 22, 2024, nunc pro tunc, and deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 8).”
Cautions
In Robinson v. Frick, Webster stated that even an unopposed summary judgment motion required review of the record before recommending judgment for the defendant.
“in considering a motion for summary judgment, [the Court] 'must review the motion, even if unopposed, and determine from what it has before it whether the moving part[y] is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 53) be GRANTED, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and ‘Plaintiff’s Request to Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment’ (Docket Entries 46, 57) be DENIED, and this action be dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the partial motion to dismiss filed by Defendants (Docket Entry 17) be GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ Title VII claim against Defendants Theodore and Barbara Dejournette and Plaintiffs’ alternative NCWHA overtime claim against all Defendants should be dismissed as uncontested. Plaintiffs’ Section 1981 and wrongful discharge claims against Defendants Theodore and Barbara Dejournette should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.”
“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Docket Entry 22) be denied as futile.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 8) be GRANTED IN PART at to Plaintiff’s Second and Seventh Causes of Action (hostile work environment based on sexual harassment in violation of Title VII and wrongful termination in violation of North Carolina public policy against sexual harassment) and DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action (tortious interference with an employment contract).”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 8) be DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s counterclaim (Docket Entry 14) be DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the stay in this matter be LIFTED, that Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Docket Entry 166) be DENIED, that his motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket Entry 176) be DENIED as moot, that his motion to terminate counsel of record and for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry 179) be DENIED as moot, and that judgment be entered dismissing the action.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw (Docket Entry 21) be GRANTED, and that this action be dismissed without prejudice.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 68) should be DENIED without prejudice to refile if needed upon the conclusion of discovery.”
“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the motion entitled Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Deadline to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and for Oral Argument on the Pending Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket Entry 70) be DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 10) should be GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, his official-capacity claims, and his conditions-of-confinement claim... IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 10) should be otherwise DENIED.”
“Plaintiff has had at least four cases dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted... Therefore, he cannot proceed in forma pauperis without showing he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Plaintiff is not in imminent danger based on the facts in the Complaint and cannot proceed in forma pauperis.”
“Plaintiff admits in his Complaint... that he previously filed three suits which were dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court’s own research confirms this... Therefore, Plaintiff cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury... He cannot proceed in forma pauperis in this matter pursuant to U.S.C. § 1915(g).”
“RECOMMENDED that the stay in this matter be LIFTED, that Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Docket Entry 101), motion to remand (Docket Entry 143), motion to dismiss indictment and void the judgment (Docket Entry 144), and motion entitled ‘Affidavit for Entry of Default Judgment’ (Docket Entry 147) all be DENIED and that judgment be entered dismissing the action.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Across the sampled dockets, the far larger share of Webster's workload is as referral magistrate handling case management, discovery disputes, mediation referrals, and dispositive-motion recommendations across other district judges' civil, employment, insurance, and prisoner-litigation caseloads.
- Where parties consented under 28 U.S.C.
- Section 636(c), he also presided directly, most visibly through a recurring docket of Social Security disability appeals decided under his own docket-number suffix.
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 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Webster no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.