Charles E. Atchley, Jr.
How Judge Atchley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When a party missed the tighter deadline for a motion to alter or amend judgment, the judge construed a late-filed reconsideration motion under the stricter Rule 60(b) standard rather than treating the label the party chose as controlling.
“Plaintiff may proceed only in accordance with Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b). This is because motions brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must be brought within 28 days after the entry of judgment.”
In granting a preliminary injunction against a federal agency, the judge limited the scope of relief to the actual plaintiffs before the court rather than issuing a broader nationwide injunction, following a Sixth Circuit concurrence's caution against universal injunctions.
“The Court is heavily persuaded by this concurrence and concludes that this preliminary injunction should only apply to Plaintiffs.”
Cautions
In a Section 1983 false-arrest case, the judge treated a facially valid arrest warrant as a complete defense regardless of the ultimate outcome of the underlying charge, so plaintiffs relying only on a later dismissal of charges (without disputing probable cause at the time of arrest) will not survive a motion to dismiss.
“An arrest pursuant to a facially valid warrant is a complete defense to a constitutional claim for false arrest or false imprisonment made pursuant to Section 1983.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc 11] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against the City of Clinton and Josh Bunch are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 10] is GRANTED and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 49] is DENIED. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Federal Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert or participation with them are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from implementing the Interpretation, Dear Educator Letter, Fact Sheet, and the Technical Assistance Document against Plaintiffs.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 49] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff has failed to show that the Court erred in its October 4, 2024, Memorandum Opinion and Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 36] is DENIED.”
“For reasons that follow, the Motion to Exclude Testimony of Tyler A. Kress, Ph.D. [Case No. 4:16-cv-117, Doc. 309; Case No. 4:16- 118, Doc. 286] and Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Steven Loudon [Case No. 4:16-cv-117, Doc. 311; Case No. 4:16-118, Doc. 288] will be GRANTED IN PART.”
“Because Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence of a specific defect in the subject vehicle that caused their damages, the Motion for Summary Judgment [Case No. 4:16-cv-117, Doc. 316; Case No. 4:16- cv-118, Doc. 293] will be GRANTED and this action DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“As the Court will explain, all of Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. His Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Counsel [Doc. 2] will therefore be DENIED AS MOOT. In addition, Plaintiff cannot meet the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), which requires that "the representative party" be able "to protect fairly and adequately the interests of the class."”
“Defendants have met their burden of showing they would prevail at trial on the exhaustion issue. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. 46] will be GRANTED, and this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Botezat's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 43], on the other hand, is GRANTED as he has established that Tennessee law does not permit the BZA to review the Planning Commission's approval or denial of a development plan.”
“Accordingly, Downing's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 46] is DENIED.”
“As for Knox County, its Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 49] is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it argues that Downing lacks a statutory right to a BZA appeal and DENIED IN PART to the extent it argues that the Knox County Zoning Ordinance is valid as it currently exists.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's federal habeas petition in part and ORDERS the Government to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing consistent with § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. All other relief requested in the petition is DENIED, as is all other relief sought in Petitioner's reply.”
“Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. 53] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 32] and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 46] are both DENIED.”
“Despite the harms an injunction could inflict on Retreat guests and Covenant Life as a whole, the Court concludes that the equities support granting injunctive relief to Norris.”
“Norris's request for summary judgment is GRANTED as to its claims that Covenant Life circumvented a stop-work order through its use of the garden hose and wrongfully failed to obtain the required permit for that use.”
“Accordingly, Unum's denial of Plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits is REVERSED and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the ERISA Record [Doc. 69] is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled early-2021 civil docket spans civil-rights and prisoner cases, immigration petitions, removed municipal-law disputes, personal-injury and Social Security appeals, and habeas petitions. One case produced a ruling adopting a magistrate judge's screening recommendation; others were remanded or resolved without a dispositive order in the sampled window.
Put Judge Atchley's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Atchley actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Atchley's own signed orders and cites them.