H. Bruce Guyton
How Judge Guyton rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Guyton no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Guyton
H. Bruce Guyton served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee from 2003 until his retirement on January 31, 2022. Before joining the bench, he practiced employment and discrimination law in Knoxville for more than two decades. Jill E. McCook succeeded him as magistrate judge.
How Judge Guyton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Stidham v. Hutchison, Guyton denied one motion to compel after the plaintiffs failed to include the disputed discovery requests and responses required by Local Rule 37.2; he also found the motion moot because defendants had since answered.
“On this basis alone, the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ motion [Doc. 77] should be denied.”
In Hickle v. Astrue, Guyton recommended reversing a denial of disability benefits after finding that the ALJ gave too much weight to selected functioning scores over treating physicians’ records.
“The ALJ’s reliance on a few GAF scores is misplaced. The totality of Dr. Rogers and Dr. Spalding’s treatment record is of greater weight than that of a GAF score, which is merely a subjective number.”
Procedural preferences
Faced with a mass copyright suit against dozens of unnamed Doe defendants, he applied Rule 20's joinder requirements rigorously, finding that separate, discrete instances of alleged infringement occurring at different times did not amount to a single transaction or occurrence, and severed the case into individual suits rather than allow it to proceed as one.
“The alleged infringements occurred over a span of over six weeks ... and they cannot be classified as a single transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences”
In Massi v. Walgreen Co., Guyton partly granted a motion to compel, requiring production of claims log entries made before the final denial of the plaintiff’s claim while sustaining privilege objections to other requested material.
“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Doc. 22] with respect to the request for Sedgwick files regarding the claim and denial of medical care to the plaintiff is GRANTED to the extent that the defendant shall be required to produce the withheld claim log entries up to the point where Sedgwick made a final denial of the plaintiff's claim.”
Cautions
In Mackey, he recommended suppressing evidence from an initial home entry after finding that officers lacked a reasonable belief the arrest-warrant target was inside. The district judge adopted that reasoning.
“Therefore, the Court finds that law enforcement did not have a reasonable belief that Thomas K. Mackey was inside of the residence at the time of the initial entry into the residence. Accordingly, the Court finds that all evidence after law enforcement’s initial entry into the trailer at 4004 French Broad should be suppressed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“for good cause shown, the defendant's Motion to Compel [Doc. 116] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answer to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 33 Interrogatories from Timothy Hutchison ... [Doc. 76] is DENIED.”
“the defendants have provided their responses to the discovery requests. [Doc. 101]. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion to compel is moot.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 31 Written Questions [Doc. 78] is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Knox County to Comply with Plaintiffs' Notice of Depositions of February 24, 2005 and for Fees and Sanctions ... [Doc. 79] is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Production of Discovery [Doc. 62] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Order Regarding Discovery of Electronically Stored Information [Doc. 63] is DENIED.”
“the Court is in complete agreement with the magistrate judge's conclusion that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or, alternatively, for Remand to Receive and Consider Additional Evidence [Doc. 15] be DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 17] be GRANTED.”
“the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Guyton's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to Section 636(b)(1); Defendant's Objections (Doc. 49) are OVERRULED; and Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 13) is DENIED.”
“the Court ACCEPTS in whole the R&R [Doc. 5] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Mr. Weitzel's Notice of Removal [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED and this case is REMANDED to the Loudon County General Sessions Court.”
“plaintiffs have recently filed a Motion to Remand [Doc. 10], which this Court DENIES as moot, given our acceptance of the R&R.”
“Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 90] is GRANTED on the ground that law enforcement did not have a reasonable belief that Thomas K. Mackey was inside of the residence at the time of the initial entry, and therefore, all evidence ... is suppressed.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: 1. The Motions to Dismiss/Motions to Sever [Docs. 11, 12] be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... 2. All claims, other than the claim of Plaintiff against Doe 1, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“the other pending Motions to Quash Subpoena and/or Motions for Protective Order [Docs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] be GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiff's First Request to Produce [Doc. 22] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum [Doc. 27] is DENIED”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude and for Sanction and Disqualification for Ex Parte Communication with Plaintiff's Treating Physician [Doc. 28] is DENIED”
“the Court OVERRULES defendant's objection [Doc. 86] to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Guyton and ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 76] as it pertains to the defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. 34]. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. 34] is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Compel is GRANTED to the extent that it sought a finding that the Consent Protective Order [Doc. 73] does not bar JTV from issuing subpoenas to Sterling's customers ... The Motion to Compel is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks a final order compelling Sterling to produce Requests for Proposals and Responses to Requests for Proposals in its control.”
“the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 13], and it is ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] is GRANTED and plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 9] is DENIED. The ALJ's decision in this case is AFFIRMED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 218 days (N = 5).
- His full-tenure docket spans a broad general civil and criminal caseload as both a referral and consent-jurisdiction magistrate: Social Security disability appeals decided directly under the parties' consent, personal-injury and products-liability diversity suits, employment discrimination claims, insurance and commercial contract disputes, prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, and, as a duty magistrate, criminal pretrial motions, search warrants, and detention proceedings.
- A sampled full-consent personal-injury case (Poullard v. Mitchell, a trucking-accident suit) shows him presiding over general civil litigation from the pleadings stage through a negotiated dismissal before trial.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Guyton was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2023.
| 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 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Guyton no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.