Matthew W. Brann
How Judge Brann rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brann
Matthew William Brann is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Brann received a commission on December 27, 2012.
Judge Brann's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brann, 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
File motions in limine by the case management order deadline; they are not permitted at trial.
“Judge Brann sets a deadline for motions in limine in the case management order. He does not permit in limine motions at trial.”
Discovery
Arrange a telephone discovery conference before filing a formal discovery motion.
“Judge Brann requires that discovery conferences be conducted by telephone prior to the filing of a formal discovery motion.”
Discovery
File a letter on the docket alerting the court to a discovery dispute before moving formally.
“Judge Brann requires counsel to alert the Court by letter filed on the docket as to any discovery dispute prior to filing a formal motion.”
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 Brann decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a supervisory-liability civil-rights claim, the judge looked specifically for a pleaded factual link between the individual defendant and the alleged conduct, not just that defendant's formal supervisory title.
“The complaint thus lacks any nexus between the facts alleged by Plaintiff and the conclusory allegation that Defendant Wetzel was 'deliberately indifferent' for not enforcing a no smoking policy.”
In a university disciplinary due-process claim, the judge treated the case as turning on a single dispositive question, whether the outcome hinged on witness credibility, and found cross-examination constitutionally required only because the panel's decision rested on credibility findings about absent witnesses.
“A case that resolves itself into a problem of credibility cannot itself be resolved without a mutual test of credibility, at least not where the stakes are this high.”
In Yang’s detention habeas case, Brann ordered release after prior removal attempts failed and the government did not show that removal was likely soon.
“Not only has Yang met his initial burden, but Respondent has failed to rebut that showing, and the evidence in totality demonstrates that Yang’s removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
Procedural preferences
On a trade-secret misappropriation claim, the judge required specific, non-conclusory identification of the confidential information at issue rather than accepting broad categorical descriptions.
“TTS must do more than include vague, general descriptions of tools and processes.”
Where a magistrate judge's report and recommendation drew no timely objection, the judge reviewed it only for clear error rather than de novo, and adopted it on that limited standard.
“Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.”
In Mims, Brann declined a request to preclear lay-witness testimony because the government raised it only in its opposition brief, without a motion the defendant could answer.
“Motions practice exists for a reason. Allowing for the consideration of requests that do not come in a motion, and, in fact, come in a single sentence on the sixth page of a brief in opposition that the opposing party did not reply to, would incentivize further requests to be brought outside of the formalized motions process.”
Cautions
In one prisoner civil-rights case, Brann applied claim preclusion to a fire-safety theory that had already reached a final judgment, including against closely related successor officials who were not identical to every defendant in the earlier suit. The ruling also independently found the claims untimely.
“Butler, however, does not get two bites at the apple. In the present case, claim preclusion applies and bars relitigation of the Eighth Amendment claim alleging fire-safety hazards at SCI Huntingdon because that claim has already been decided on the merits in federal court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted and Defendant Wetzel will be dismissed without prejudice as a party.”
“Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied and the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' Counts II and III may proceed to discovery. Plaintiffs' Counts V and VI are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Aulisio's motion (Doc. 28) for default judgment is DENIED.”
“Petitioner Joseph G. Aulisio's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 is DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability shall not issue, as Aulisio has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 27, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 103) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART, as follows: a. DENIED as to Plaintiff Jane Doe’s claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment under Title IX. b. GRANTED as to Jane Doe’s state-law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3) is DENIED.”
“Her motion for remand will therefore be denied.”
“Defendant State National Insurance Co.’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 23) is GRANTED; Defendant The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co.’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 25) is GRANTED; The Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1-1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly, Stanko’s motion to suppress is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Dewald’s Motion to Suppress Evidence will be denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed cases include employment, insurance, Social Security, prisoner, and arbitration disputes. This small, mixed sample cannot establish the districtwide case mix or how often motions are granted. Several sampled dockets had no readable motion ruling; the observed outcomes come from the cases with verifiable entries.
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 | 13 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 17 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 22 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 22 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 28 |
| Sep 2022 | 9 | 36 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 38 |
| Sep 2021 | 17 | 38 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 28 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 25 |
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 Pennsylvania, not for Judge Brann: 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 | 1,590 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 660 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 901 | 10.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 21 | 39.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,590 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,535 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,370 | 11 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,550 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,420 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,410 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,611 | 11 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 Brann with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brann, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brann's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace