William L. Osteen, Jr.
How Judge Osteen rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Osteen
William Lindsay Osteen, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Osteen received a commission on September 19, 2007.
Judge Osteen's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Osteen, 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.”
Filing
For proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, submit a Word file to the judge’s case manager.
“Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Submit in Word format to the Court’s case manager at [email protected].”
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 Osteen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a motion to dismiss, the judge treats an informal request for leave to amend tucked into the end of an opposition brief as procedurally improper, requiring instead a standalone motion under Rule 7(b)(1) with the proposed amendment attached per local rule.
“A request for leave to amend, in the event that any part of the complaint is dismissed, at the end of a plaintiffs’ response brief opposing a motion to dismiss is not a proper motion for leave to amend.”
Procedural preferences
In a multi-defendant, multi-count case, the judge works through each count against each defendant separately rather than resolving the motion as a single up-or-down disposition, producing granular, count-by-count and defendant-by-defendant rulings even on an unopposed or lightly-opposed motion.
“The motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED as to Counts Two, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve. It is GRANTED as to Counts Three and Five to the extent they are brought against Holly Smith in her official capacity. It is DENIED as to Counts Three and Five to the extent they are brought against Holly Smith in her individual capacity. It is DENIED as to Count Four.”
In an interim zoning dispute, the judge distinguished between mandatory relief and a narrower order preserving the church’s position. He granted a prohibitory injunction while denying a mandatory injunction after weighing the balance of equities and public interest.
“Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary prohibitory injunction, but because the balance of equities/public interest factor favors Defendant with respect to a preliminary mandatory injunction, this court declines to grant that form of relief.”
In a multi-defendant antitrust suit, the judge examined allegations of each landlord’s participation separately at the pleading stage rather than attributing unnamed landlords’ conduct to every defendant.
“This court therefore does not attribute to any Defendant Landlord what the complaint says unnamed ‘landlords’ said, did, or understood.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class-Action Complaint, (Doc. 21), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted as to Counts I–II, IV–V, and VII–XVIII, which are all hereby dismissed without prejudice. ... The motion is fully denied as to Counts VI and XIX.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendant Holly Smith, (Doc. 16), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED as to Counts Two, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve. ... It is DENIED as to Count Four.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 10), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 31), is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike, (Doc. 43), is GRANTED as to the Wray Messages and the Peele Email and DENIED as to the Burns messages.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal, (Doc. 33), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Ameron International Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 62), is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, (Doc. 59), is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 9), is GRANTED, that Defendant Bobby L. Bollinger, Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 13), is GRANTED”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 12), is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order, Return Bond, and Cancel Preliminary Injunction Hearing, (Doc. 19), is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion to strike is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the alternative motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Counts II and III of LifeBrite Hospital Group of Stokes, LLC’s and LifeBrite Laboratories, LLC’s Second Amended Complaint and Counterclaims, (Docs. 238, 240), are DISMISSED.”
“The UNC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 13), and the Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 15), are both granted in part. Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief as to his Title IX claim, asserted against the UNC Defendants, as well as to his § 1983 due process claim, asserted against both the UNC Defendants and the Individual Defendants. Those claims are dismissed with prejudice. As this court has granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s two federal law claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Those claims will be remanded to state court.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. 25), is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), (Doc. 5), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is DENIED as to the request for a mandatory injunction, but GRANTED as to the request for additional relief as this court deems appropriate, namely, a prohibitory injunction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sampled cases split between adopting or rejecting magistrate recommendations in Social Security appeals (a heavy, recurring share of the civil docket) and presiding over contested civil litigation ranging from removed employment and contract disputes to a multi-party, nationally watched election-administration challenge; federal habeas petitions are frequently dismissed on procedural/exhaustion grounds rather than reaching the merits.
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 | 29 |
| 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 | 8 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 29 | 8 |
| Sep 2025 | 24 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 14 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 8 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 7 | 4 |
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 Osteen: 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 Osteen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Osteen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Osteen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace