Lindsey Ann Freeman
How Judge Freeman rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Freeman
Lindsey Ann Freeman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Freeman received a commission on December 19, 2025.
Judge Freeman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Freeman, 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.”
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 Freeman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Treats a state-law contract dispute as belonging in state court when federal standards supply background but contractual intent can resolve the claim without deciding a federal issue.
“The parties' disagreement hinges on contractual interpretation, not the application of federal law.”
Permits joinder where plaintiffs allege the same scheme and common threshold questions, even when individual transactions differ in details such as time, amount, and witnesses.
“Plaintiffs essentially alleged they all attended the same metaphorical baseball game. The minor differences that Defendants identify do not substantively undermine that Plaintiffs' claims arose out of the same transaction or occurrence.”
In competing lead-plaintiff applications under the PSLRA, emphasizes comparative financial loss while separately checking typicality and adequacy.
“Schroeder has incurred the largest financial losses from Defendants' alleged misstatements and omissions, making him the presumptive lead plaintiff.”
Procedural preferences
When no party objects to a magistrate judge's recommendation, reviews the face of the record for clear error before adopting it.
“must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'”
Cautions
A pro se complaint still must provide enough facts to state a claim and fair notice of its grounds; liberal construction does not excuse Rule 8's pleading requirements.
“liberal construction does not mean overlooking the pleading requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”
In the reviewed securities case, later business disappointment and optimistic projections did not establish a strong inference that company officers knowingly or recklessly misled investors.
“not every financial disappointment is actionable under federal law.”
In a compassionate-release case, a near-immediate reoffense after an earlier release weighed against a sentence reduction, together with seriousness, deterrence, and public protection.
“This history signals a substantial risk of recidivism.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS UNC Hospitals' motion to remand back to the Orange County Superior Court”
“Defendants' Motion to Sever, Dkt. 4, is DENIED”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Dkt. 22) is DENIED”
“Mr. Monroe's Motion to be Heard, properly construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, is DENIED”
“this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)”
“the First Successive Section 2255 Motion, Dkt. 306, is dismissed”
“relief under the First Step Act as requested in the Second Successive Section 2255 Motion, Dkt. 307, be denied”
“this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)”
“the Court GRANTS Moore's motion to remand the case back to the Alamance County Superior Court”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31) is GRANTED”
“the Court hereby GRANTS movant Schroeder's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel”
“DENIES movants Wenn and Luciani's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel”
The court adopted an unopposed screening recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim after the plaintiff failed to update his address.
After de novo review of the plaintiff's objections, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because the complaint did not give fair notice of the claims, while permitting a new complaint that complied with Rule 8.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 12 days (N = 3).
The early assignment set combines new filings with complex inherited matters, including civil-rights and prisoner cases, contract and title-loan litigation, securities actions, employment disputes, trademark matters, and administrative review. New assignments continued through August 12, 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 | 1 |
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 Freeman: 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 Freeman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Freeman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Freeman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace