N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.
How Judge Tilley rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tilley
Norwood Carlton Tilley, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Tilley received a commission on October 17, 1988. Judge Tilley assumed senior status on December 16, 2008.
Judge Tilley's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Tilley's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Tilley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Altria Client Services v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor, Tilley denied RJR’s motion for a new trial after finding that RJR had cross-examined Altria’s witnesses and presented its own experts; the jury’s disagreement with RJR did not make the trial unfair.
“RJR cross-examined Altria’s infringement, damages, and validity witnesses and presented its own expert testimony on those matters ... That the jury did not agree with RJR does not mean the trial was unfair.”
In ATI Industrial Automation v. Applied Robotics, Tilley denied the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge after considering its repeat North Carolina customers, sales and employee visits. He explained that the sales showed ongoing relationships even though they represented a small share of the company’s revenue.
“AR’s sales are therefore relevant not simply for the aggregate revenue they generate, but instead for what they reveal about the relationships AR maintains with North Carolina.”
In Branyon v. Phoenix Business Consulting, Tilley denied a motion to compel arbitration because the contract’s citation to a biblical passage about lawsuits contained no agreement to arbitrate.
“Neither the cited contract section, nor any other portion of the contract, contains any language that would imply the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes. In other words, there is nothing to suggest a ‘meeting of the minds’ regarding arbitration.”
Procedural preferences
In USF Insurance Co. v. Bullins Painting, Inc., Tilley set aside an entry of default despite the defendant’s personal responsibility for missing the response deadline. Counsel moved promptly after being retained, the proposed defense was not wholly futile, and the insurer showed no prejudice from reopening the case.
“In sum, four of the factors used to assess a movant’s ‘good cause’ under Rule 55(c) weigh in favor of setting aside the entry of default, one weighs against it, and one is neutral.”
In United States v. Miller, Tilley denied compassionate release despite recognizing that Miller would no longer qualify as a career offender under current Guidelines law. He found no extraordinary and compelling basis for relief and concluded that the Section 3553(a) factors, including violent offenses and recent prison discipline, also foreclosed release.
“Even if Miller were found to have shown extraordinary and compelling reasons, which he has not, application of the factors from § 3553(a) forecloses relief.”
Cautions
In ATI Industrial Automation, Inc. v. Applied Robotics, Inc., Tilley noted that ATI placed alternative transfer and discovery requests in its response to a motion instead of filing a separate motion as the local rule required. The court denied the defendant’s jurisdictional and transfer motion.
“ATI presented its alternative proposals in its Response to AR’s instant Motion, rather than in a motion of its own ... The Local Rules of this Court require that each motion 'be set out in a separate pleading.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default [Doc. #7] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #9] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees and DENIED as to Plaintiff’s FOIA claim.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Production and for Sanctions Under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3) [Doc. #15] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #20] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is DENIED without prejudice to resubmission after Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint or in connection with a dispositive motion filed after the close of discovery.”
“AR’s motion [Doc. # 24] is DENIED on all counts.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Rodney Anton Williamson’s pro se Motion for Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) [Doc. #384] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration or Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [Doc. #10] is DENIED.”
“Creative Snacks Co., LLC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. #6] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”
“For the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant David Worth Steele’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and for Compassionate Release [Doc. #162] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3), or Alternatively, for Dismissal or Stay Pursuant to the ‘First-Filed Action’ Doctrine [Doc. #17] is GRANTED in so far as this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant”
“Plaintiff’s Alternative Motion for Expedited, Limited Discovery Regarding Personal Jurisdiction [Doc. #27] is DENIED”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Barring Defendant from Pursuing Haitian Proceeding in Contravention of Arbitration Agreement [Doc. #3] is DENIED for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant”
“Defendants’ motion to set aside the entry of default [Doc. # 13] is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff’s motion to enter default judgment against Defendants [Doc. # 10] is DENIED”
“In sum, the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 2] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s claim for negligence and gross negligence based on a theory of false light invasion of privacy is DISMISSED.”
“Petitioner’s ... Application [Doc. #7] to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new action on a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, accompanied by the five dollar filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis if he can meet the tests set out in the Recommendation.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Stephen Anthony Miller’s pro se motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) [Doc. #78] is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled dockets span general civil litigation, Social Security appeals, federal prisoner post-conviction motions, and criminal prosecutions. Several civil cases resolved before a dispositive ruling, and the retained docket descriptions do not supply the substance of contested decisions. A new post-conviction matter remained assigned to Tilley in 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 26 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 10 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 9 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 20 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 12 | 5 |
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 Tilley: 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 Tilley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tilley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tilley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace