L. Patrick Auld
How Judge Auld rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Auld
L. Patrick Auld has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina in Greensboro since November 2009. Before joining the bench, he clerked for federal district and appellate judges, practiced media law, and served as an Assistant United States Attorney.
Judge Auld's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Auld, 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 a tabbed working copy of any brief with more than ten exhibits within three business days, including for nondispositive motions and Standing Order 30 cases.
“Working Copies: When requested by the Court or if a brief has more than 10 exhibits. In either case, the brief, with tabs, shall be provided to the Clerk’s Office within 3 business days of filing the original on CM/ECF.”
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 Auld decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Taylor v. Lawson, Auld recommended dismissing a prisoner’s Bivens complaint without prejudice. The alleged mistakes in collecting and testing a urine sample and preparing an incident report amounted at most to negligence, which did not state a constitutional claim.
“At most, Plaintiff’s factual assertions (if true) would support a finding that said Defendants negligently failed to follow proper administrative procedures ... ‘[i]njuries inflicted by governmental negligence are not addressed by the United States Constitution.’”
In Napoleon T. v. Bisignano, Auld affirmed the Commissioner’s decision after finding that the ALJ had treated the claimant’s mental conditions as severe and included related limitations in the residual functional capacity, contrary to the claimant’s argument.
“the ALJ apparently accorded Plaintiff’s subjective statements regarding his mental symptoms the benefit of the doubt and 1) found Plaintiff’s depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and PTSD severe impairments at step two ... 2) included multiple limitations in the RFC to account for the impact of those impairments”
Procedural preferences
In Taylor v. Lawson, Auld recommended dismissing a prisoner’s Bivens complaint without prejudice because the alleged collection and testing mistakes amounted at most to negligence and the administrative-process claim did not link a particular defendant to a constitutional deprivation.
“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens ... suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”
On competing sealing requests in a medical technology dispute, the judge required a sufficient, specific justification for closure and denied unsupported motions while allowing the parties to submit revised requests.
“The Motions to Seal by VMI and Siemens fail to provide a sufficient basis for the Court to grant the relief requested.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
A former federal prisoner, transferred through three different district courts, brought Bivens claims against Bureau of Prisons and halfway-house staff over a disciplinary urinalysis and resulting loss of 399 days of sentence-reduction credits. On mandatory Section 1915A screening, the court recommended dismissal without prejudice: the alleged procedural irregularities in testing and the disciplinary hearing, even if true, sounded in negligence rather than a constitutional violation, and the complaint's own allegations showed the plaintiff received the core process due (notice, a hearing at which he submitted evidence, and some evidence supporting the finding). A recommendation to the district judge, not a final order.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in forma pauperis status be granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision finding no disability is AFFIRMED, and that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED (A) that the First Successive Section 2255 Motion (Docket Entry 306) be dismissed”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED ... (B) that relief under the First Step Act as requested in the Second Successive Section 2255 Motion (Docket Entry 307) be denied”
“IT IS ORDERED (A) that Petitioner’s requests for counsel in the First Successive Section 2255 Motion (Docket Entry 306) and the separate Motion (Docket Entry 308) are denied without prejudice”
“Plaintiff’s first Motion to Amend Caption and Clarify Defendants (Docket Entry 13) is GRANTED as to the termination of ‘Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO)’ and ‘Geico Insurance Company, LLC’ as defendants”
“the Inspection Motion (Docket Entry 21), the Motion to Strike (Docket Entry 23), and Plaintiff’s second Motion to Amend Caption and Clarify Defendants (Docket Entry 26) are TERMINATED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED ... (B) that the Dismissal Motion (Docket Entry 7) be TERMINATED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s decision finding no disability be affirmed, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion (Docket Entry 68) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as specified herein.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the instant Motion (Docket Entry 89) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Docket Entry 22) is GRANTED IN PART, in that the Fourth and Fifth Defenses are STRICKEN, and DENIED IN PART”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Request to Amend Complaint and Add Additional Parties (Docket Entry 11) is DENIED as futile.”
“VMI’s Motion to Seal (Docket Entry 413) and Siemens’s Motion to Seal (Docket Entry 417) are DENIED, but without prejudice”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Letters Rogatory on Defendant (Docket Entry 5) is GRANTED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The far larger share of his workload, visible throughout the district's dockets, is as referral magistrate handling case management, discovery, and dispositive-motion recommendations (heavily Social Security) across other judges' civil and habeas caseloads; where parties consent under 28 U.S.C. section 636(c), he also presides directly through summary judgment and post-judgment motions.
- The sample now spans both roles across nearly a decade of his docket.
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 | 5 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 7 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 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 Auld: 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 Auld with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Auld, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Auld's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace