William Carleton Metcalf
How Judge Metcalf rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Metcalf
W. Carleton Metcalf became a United States magistrate judge in the Western District of North Carolina in November 2018, sitting in Asheville. He previously practiced law for more than twenty years at an Asheville firm and helped establish the district’s Federal Bar Association chapter.
Judge Metcalf's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Metcalf, 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
An extension motion for a response or reply must be filed before the existing deadline expires.
“Any motion seeking an extension of the time to file a response or reply shall be filed prior to the expiration of the existing deadline for the underlying motion.”
Discovery
Production-order requests should identify the producer and materials and explain the producer’s objection.
“A request for a Production Order should: 1) identify the producing party, 2) sufficiently define the materials that are the subject of the request, and 3) clearly advise that the producing party objects to the production of the materials, even with the entry of a Protective Order, such that a Court order is needed to overrule the producing party’s (perhaps pro forma) objection and secure the production of the materials.”
Discovery
A motion seeking a production or protective order should include the proposed order and the affected parties’ positions.
“Movants seeking a Production Order, a Protective Order, or both should submit a proposed order for the Court’s consideration and advise of the position of any other party or parties and the producing party as to the entry of that specific proposed order.”
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 Metcalf decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Industrial Services Group v. Farley, Metcalf recommended dismissal without prejudice on issue-preclusion grounds because the new allegations did not change the nature of the plaintiff's earlier action.
“recommending that the Defendants’ motion be granted on issue preclusion grounds, and this case be dismissed without prejudice ... the Court overrules the Plaintiff’s Objection and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations ... the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9] is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
Procedural preferences
In Venclauskas v. Hillman Beer, Metcalf concluded that the federal statute supplied the exclusive remedy up to the minimum wage, while parallel state-law tip claims could proceed for amounts above that threshold.
“recommending that the Court grant the Defendants’ Motion in part and deny the Defendants’ Motion in part ... the Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Complaint [Doc. 20] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Count III of the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
Cautions
In Abercrombie v. Carolina Speech and Hearing, Metcalf rejected a retaliation claim because the plaintiff's messages defended her job performance without identifying workplace discrimination or participation in a Title VII proceeding.
“Plaintiff has not alleged that she opposed discriminatory practices in the workplace or participated in an ongoing investigation or proceeding under Title VII. Significantly, neither the April 23 Chat Message nor the April 23 Email reference any discrimination ... Rather, both the April 23 Chat Message and April 23 Email focused on Plaintiff’s defense of her job performance.”
In Nanney v. Wells Fargo, Metcalf found that a very large damages demand did not establish diversity jurisdiction when the removing defendant itself described the claim as frivolous. He recommended returning the case to state court without reaching the dismissal motion.
“Accordingly, the undersigned is not persuaded that Defendant has met its burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum and Recommendation, recommending that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be denied ... the Defendants’ Objections ... are OVERRULED ... the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 25] is DENIED”
“recommended that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted because Plaintiff abandoned his claim and because there was no genuine issue for trial in any event ... Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 22] is GRANTED; and this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“recommending that the Defendants’ motion be granted on issue preclusion grounds, and this case be dismissed without prejudice ... the Court overrules the Plaintiff’s Objection and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations ... the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9] is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“recommending that the Court grant the Defendants’ Motion in part and deny the Defendants’ Motion in part ... the Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Complaint [Doc. 20] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Count III of the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part ... The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 19] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to Counts III and X. The motion is GRANTED as to all other claims.”
“the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Commissioner’s decision be vacated and that this case be remanded for further administrative proceedings ... the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and this case is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order.”
“the Court overrules the Defendants’ Objection and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, and that this case be allowed to proceed ... the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Alternative Relief [Doc. 4] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that the Plaintiff’s claim be allowed to proceed to the extent it is based on events that occurred after August 6, 2021.”
“the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s amended recommendation regarding the pending motion ... the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Shiflett’s Counterclaims [Doc. 11] is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED.”
“the undersigned RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS that this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of Henderson County, North Carolina, with the pending Motion to Dismiss being reserved for further action by the state court as it may deem appropriate.”
“The Motion to Dismiss in Part [Doc. 7] is GRANTED IN PART, and Count II of the Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Motion to Dismiss in Part [Doc. 7] is otherwise DENIED.”
“Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Doc. 69] is GRANTED IN PART. The Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
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 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Metcalf: 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 Metcalf with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Metcalf, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Metcalf's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace