Lindsey Ann Freeman
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”
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 cases, title-loan litigation, securities actions, employment disputes, product-liability suits, and administrative-review cases.
Put Judge Freeman's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Freeman actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Freeman's own signed orders and cites them.