David C. Keesler
How Judge Keesler rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Keesler
David C. Keesler became a United States magistrate judge in the Western District of North Carolina in April 2004 and sits in Charlotte. Before joining the federal bench, he clerked for a North Carolina Supreme Court justice and worked as a state and federal prosecutor.
Judge Keesler's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Keesler, 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
Motions
A party seeking more time for a motion, response, or reply must file an extension motion.
“If a party needs additional time to file a motion, response, or reply, a motion for extension of time shall be filed.”
Discovery
A motion to compel must state that the parties conferred in good faith but could not resolve the dispute.
“A motion to compel must include a statement by the movant that the parties have conferred in good faith in an attempt to resolve the dispute and are unable to do so.”
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).
How Judge Keesler decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Global Plasma Solutions v. Elsevier, Keesler recommended dismissing the unfair-trade-practices claim while preserving the defamation claim arising from the same publication.
“[Doc. 47] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... the Motion is GRANTED with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice Act, and such claim is DISMISSED. The Motion is DENIED with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for defamation under North Carolina law”
Procedural preferences
In Webber v. Town of Mooresville, Keesler recommended dismissing the police department as not separately suable while allowing the claims against the town to proceed.
“grant the Motion to Dismiss as to Defendant Town of Mooresville Police Department ... Defendant Town of Mooresville Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED”
Cautions
In Rollins v. Luchak, Keesler recommended summary judgment for the defendant because no genuine dispute remained and qualified immunity applied.
“recommended that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted because there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial and because Defendant would be protected by qualified immunity ... Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 84] is GRANTED; and this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“recommending that Defendants’ Motion be granted in part and denied in part ... Defendants’ Motion Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in the M&R”
“recommends that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss as to Defendant Town of Mooresville ... Defendant Town of Mooresville’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 32) is DENIED”
“grant the Motion to Dismiss as to Defendant Town of Mooresville Police Department ... Defendant Town of Mooresville Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED”
“The Motion of Defendant Elsevier Ltd. to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [Doc. 42] is DENIED”
“[Doc. 47] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... the Motion is GRANTED with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice Act, and such claim is DISMISSED. The Motion is DENIED with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for defamation under North Carolina law”
“the M&R will be affirmed and the Motion to Remand will be denied ... The M&R is AFFIRMED and its findings and conclusions accepted after the Court’s de novo review; Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED”
“recommended that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted because there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial and because Defendant would be protected by qualified immunity ... Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 84] is GRANTED; and this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“the Memorandum and Recommendation (‘M&R’) of the Honorable Magistrate David C. Keesler (Doc. No. 10), which recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed ... Defendant’s Motion to Affirm the Commissioner’s Decision (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED”
“the Court will adopt the M&R in part and the Commissioner’s decision will be AFFIRMED ... Plaintiff’s Social Security Appeal (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED”
“the Memorandum and Recommendations (‘M&R’) of the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge David Keesler to deny the Motion ... The M&R (Doc. No. 40) is ADOPTED; ... Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED”
“the Honorable David C. Keesler, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider this pending motion ... the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss be denied ... the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 62] is ACCEPTED; the Defendants’ Motion to ... Dismiss [Doc. 52] is DENIED”
“Magistrate Judge Keesler ... recommends this Court grant in part Defendant’s Motion with respect to all Lanham Act claims ... the Court ... ADOPTS the M&R ... the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claims WITH PREJUDICE”
“Defendant KDP’s Motions to Dismiss and to Strike Jury Demand (Doc. No. 19) are DENIED;”
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 | 4 |
| 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 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 11 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 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 United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, not for Judge Keesler: 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 | 1,033 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 193 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 586 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 248 | 13.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 6 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,033 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,154 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 958 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,210 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 951 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 873 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 816 | 9.1 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 Keesler with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Keesler, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Keesler's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace