Robert John Colville
How Judge Colville rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Colville
Robert John Colville is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Colville received a commission on December 31, 2019.
Judge Colville's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Colville, 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
Contacting chambers
Make ordinary requests by motion with a proposed order, not by letter.
“Communication with the Court shall be in the form of motions (rather than letters to Chambers), accompanied by a proposed order specifying the relief requested.”
Contacting chambers
Do not discuss the merits of a case with chambers staff.
“concerning the administration, not the merits, of a case”
Filing
File papers on CM/ECF unless a local rule or court direction permits another method.
“All filings must be made on the District’s CM/ECF electronic filing system, unless otherwise permitted or directed by the Local Rules of Court.”
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 Colville decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Nelken v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Colville held that a loose wire could have remained long enough to give constructive notice and left that question to a jury.
“the loose wire is of the type with an inherently sustained duration, as opposed to a transitory spill which could have occurred an instant before the action. Therefore, the nature of the condition requires that a jury decide whether Defendants had constructive notice and summary judgment is not appropriate.”
In Miller v. M.H. Malueg Trucking Co., LLC, he dismissed a direct corporate-negligence count on a pleading motion after the employer admitted agency and the complaint sought no punitive damages.
“once the employer/supervisor defendants admitted an agency relationship and no claims for punitive damages remained in the action ... the plaintiffs in those cases could no longer proceed with the direct negligence claims against the employer/supervisor defendants.”
Procedural preferences
The court declined to resolve part of a settlement agreement counterclaim on summary judgment because neither side supplied the alleged social media post’s content.
“no party has presented evidence as to what the alleged post on the Piercing Babes Facebook page said.”
Cautions
In Tarugu v. Journal of Biological Chemistry, Colville dismissed with prejudice a claim seeking to compel withdrawal of a journal retraction because amendment would be futile.
“Because amendment of Count I would be futile, the Court will dismiss Count I with prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss will be denied.”
“this Court will grant Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss, and dismiss Count I of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Because amendment of Count I would be futile, the Court will dismiss Count I with prejudice.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“the Court will grant the motion and Count II will be dismissed.”
“Defendants, AHN, Meenihan, Islamova, and Abts’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 37, 73, 77) is granted as to Counts VIII through X, XIII through XXI and XXXI, with prejudice, and as to Counts I through VII, XI, XII, and XXII through XXX, without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).”
“The Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 57) is granted, with prejudice.”
“Defendants, Caceres and Sagath’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 97) is granted as to Counts VIII through X, XIII through XXI and XXXI, with prejudice, and as to Counts I through VII, XI, XII, and XXII through XXX, without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).”
“The Court accepts and adopts Judge Kelly's Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied.”
“The Motion is granted as to Plaintiff's medical negligence claims at Counts 18-23, and these claims are dismissed with prejudice because the Court finds that amendment as to these claims would be futile; The Motion is granted as to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims at Counts 23-27, and these claims are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend; and The Motion is denied as to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Winters at Count 28.”
“The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 42) filed by PrimeCare is granted in its entirety, and Plaintiff's claim against PrimeCare at Count 30 is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.”
“The Motion is granted as to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Rudd, Grossman, and Wexford at Counts 9, 10, and 17, and these claims are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend; The Motion is granted as to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference and medical negligence claims against Defendants Depew, Brash, McCabe, DeNinno, and Rutan at Counts 4-8 and 12-16, and these claims are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend; and The Motion is denied as to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Miller at Count 11.”
“Therefore, Dana Mining's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Federal is denied and Federal's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.”
“Based on the above, Dana Mining's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Brickstreet is denied. Further, for the same reasons as detailed above, Brickstreet's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
“It is further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted as to Plaintiff's Eight Amendment Verbal Harassment claim and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.”
“Plaintiff's Objections to the August 12, 2021 Report and Recommendation are overruled, and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.”
“Plaintiff's Objections to the October 19, 2021 Report and Recommendation are overruled, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court will GRANT Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. This case is STAYED pending the outcome of arbitration.”
“Plaintiff's Motions to Strike the Motion to Compel (ECF Nos. 19, 27), Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 33), Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 36), and Motion for Oral Argument (ECF No. 31) are DENIED.”
“It is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as an unauthorized petition over which this Court lacks jurisdiction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The earlier 2021-2022 caseload review includes False Claims Act, trademark, employment-discrimination, prisoner medical-care, and criminal cases. Many of those civil cases ended through alternative dispute resolution or administrative closure. Three later 2023 cases were selected separately for motion dispositions.
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 | 19 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 3 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 20 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 19 | 20 |
| Sep 2025 | 32 | 17 |
| Mar 2025 | 21 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 11 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 17 | 14 |
| Sep 2023 | 31 | 16 |
| Mar 2023 | 20 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 16 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 6 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Colville: 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 | 1,965 | 6.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 665 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 659 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 632 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,965 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,871 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,021 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,988 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,891 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,939 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,766 | 6.9 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 Colville with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Colville, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Colville's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace