Thomas D. Schroeder
How Judge Schroeder rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Schroeder
Thomas D. Schroeder is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Schroeder received a commission on January 8, 2008.
Judge Schroeder's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Schroeder, 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 Schroeder decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an ERISA excessive-fee case, the judge treats industry comparator plans as a 'meaningful benchmark' sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss even when the defendant shows one of the plaintiff's own supporting fee figures was miscalculated, so long as other unchallenged comparators remain in the complaint.
“As Old Dominion has not challenged four of Plaintiffs’ alleged benchmarks (see Doc. 1 ¶ 99), it has not demonstrated that it is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiffs’ recordkeeping fee claim.”
In the Syngenta antitrust case, Schroeder denied summary judgment after finding evidence from which a jury could conclude that the loyalty rebate program raised prices and restricted competition.
“there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the program incentivizes the limited distributors to sell Syngenta AIs at higher prices than a purely competitive market would require while effectively dominating a significant share of”
Procedural preferences
In an ERISA fee case against Old Dominion, Schroeder took notice of the plan’s public Form 5500 filings but declined to take notice of fee disclosures and service agreements that had not been shown to be public records or referenced in the complaint.
“The court declines, however, to take judicial notice of Old Dominion's other exhibits, which are ‘Rule 408(b)(2) disclosures’ ... Old Dominion has not shown that these are public records or referenced in the complaint.”
In Woods’s suit over a delay in filing state adoption petitions, Schroeder dismissed the federal claims and observed that any remedy for a continuing delay lay in North Carolina state courts.
“In light of Woods's assertions in his briefing that some ongoing delay continues to exist, the court would be remiss not to advise Woods that, if true, his remedy, if any, lies with the North Carolina state courts.”
In Grant v. Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, Schroeder transferred an employee’s claims to the agreed Florida forum after finding that the employment agreement’s forum clause was enforceable.
“the court finds the forum-selection clause enforceable in this case.”
Cautions
In Jones v. City of Greensboro, Schroeder granted the city summary judgment after weighing a firefighter’s speech against evidence supporting a reasonable apprehension of disruption to the department’s operations.
“created a reasonable apprehension of disruption to the efficiency of the GFD’s operations.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 90) be granted and that summary judgment be entered against Plaintiff on the claim ... for denial of access to courts for failing to provide adequate legal services”
“IT IS ORDERED that Old Dominion's motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Durham County Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 11) is GRANTED, and Woods’s individual and official capacity claims against Defendants Cveticanin and Edmonds are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is DENIED.”
“that Defendant Lynch's motion entitled ‘Defendant Jeffrey Lee Lynch's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint’ (Doc. 41) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Declaration of Constance C. Lowenstein under FRCP 37(c)(1) (Doc. 59) are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“that Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Doc. 8) is DENIED”
“that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 10) is GRANTED, and that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is DENIED because it relies on evidence outside the pleadings, but such denial is without prejudice to further consideration on a future motion for summary judgment”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is DENIED.”
“The motion to dismiss by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Bank, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (Doc. 14) is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' claims as to these Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice”
“The motion for summary judgment by April E. Stephenson, P.A. and Manly Andrew (Doc. 32) is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiffs' ‘Petition for Motion of Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Possession Prohibiting Seizure of Plaintiffs' Property’ (Doc. 47), motion for ‘Replevin in Detinent’ (Doc. 48), and ‘Motion for Issuance of Cease and Desist Order for the Replevin in Detinent’ (Doc. 56) are DENIED as moot”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 61) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Cole's motion for conditional certification (Doc. 23) is GRANTED IN PART, and a FLSA collective is certified as follows”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants A. Aldridge, III, D.B. Evans, and O.C. Harrington (Doc. 31) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Sampled cases span prisoner habeas and civil-rights suits, employment discrimination removed from state court, and product-liability class litigation.
- Most of this court's docket entries are stub descriptions listing only the filer, document type, and date, without attached order text, so the sample does not support a grounded dispositive-motion timeline.
- In McClary v. Covance, for example, the docket shows discovery motions and a protective order before a reported mediated settlement, but no dispositive ruling with quotable text.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 Schroeder: 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 Schroeder with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schroeder, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Schroeder's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace