J. Ronnie Greer
How Judge Greer rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Greer
J. Ronnie Greer is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Greer received a commission on June 12, 2003. Judge Greer assumed senior status on June 30, 2018.
Judge Greer's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Greer, 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
Where counsel seeks an order on a contested matter, a formal motion must be filed.
“Where counsel seeks an order on a contested matter, a formal motion must be filed.”
Motions
Counsel seeking oral argument should include a formal request for argument in their pleading.
“Counsel seeking oral argument should include a formal request for argument in their pleading.”
Discovery
Discovery disputes will generally be handled via telephone conference only after counsel have attempted in good faith to resolve them.
“Discovery disputes will generally be handled via telephone conference only after counsel have attempted in good faith to resolve them.”
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 Greer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a fraudulent-joinder-style FDCPA licensure claim, the court found a state regulatory scheme's criminal-misdemeanor sanction called for the rule of lenity to be applied in the defendant's favor when the statute's private-right-of-action was ambiguous.
“The Court agrees that, in this situation, the rule of lenity requires that the statute be construed in favor of the defendant.”
On a due-process evidentiary-admission habeas claim, overwhelming independent forensic and testimonial evidence of guilt defeated a claim that even conceded over-detailed prior-bad-act testimony was improperly admitted.
“the Court finds that the victim's testimony at issue was not material to the jury's decision to convict Petitioner for the underlying crimes, as the remainder of the evidence presented at Petitioner's trial was specific, exhaustive, and highly probative as to Petitioner's guilt.”
Procedural preferences
On reconsideration, the judge required a genuinely overlooked filing or similar defect in the record before revisiting a prior ruling, and drew a firm line under finality once the merits were addressed, going so far as to warn a repeat pro se filer that further duplicative post-judgment motions would not be entertained.
“Accordingly, Plaintiff is ADVISED that the Court will not entertain any further motions, supplements, letters or other submissions from him on any of the issues addressed herein.”
In Out in the Woods, LLC v. Kaufhold, he vacated defaults despite apparent evasion of service because the defendants showed a possible defense and the plaintiff showed no prejudice from reopening the case.
“The Court does not condone Defendants' apparent evasion of service. Nevertheless, their potentially meritorious defenses, the absence of prejudice to Plaintiff, and the strong policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits establish good cause for setting aside the entry of default.”
A Rule 59(e) motion that merely reargues the merits already addressed, without developed legal authority for the new burden claimed, is treated as an improper vehicle for relitigation rather than genuine grounds for altering a judgment.
“Rule 59(e) is not an apparatus by which it can now relitigate the reasonableness of those accommodations ... A motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.”
In In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, he vacated preliminary approval of a negotiated class settlement after a conflict among class members prevented the proposed class from meeting Rule 23.
“the Court is nevertheless required to follow the law, although it has searched mightily for a reason to deny the motion.”
In consolidated fire litigation, the court stayed the remaining claims while certifying an interlocutory appeal so that the parties would know whether dismissed failure to warn claims would return before proceeding on the merits.
“And all parties will benefit from knowing if the failure to warn claims will be reinstated before proceeding on the merits of the command structure claim.”
Cautions
In a Section 1983 case against a state prison, the judge underscored that a non-suable governmental facility or department will be dismissed sua sponte even if no party raises the issue.
“The Court first notes, sua sponte, that Northeast Correctional Complex is a non-person and is, therefore, not a suable entity in a Sec. 1983 action.”
In Russell v. Gardner, he dismissed a punitive-damages claim because the complaint added conclusory labels of recklessness and gross negligence to facts describing an ordinary rear-end collision.
“plaintiff's label's of ‘recklessness’ and ‘gross negligence’ are conclusory statements which are essentially meaningless absent the allegation of sufficient facts to establish a plausible possibility of entitlement to punitive damages in the case.”
A habeas or Sec. 2255 petitioner cannot access ordinary civil discovery tools; discovery in collateral proceedings is gated by Habeas Rule 6's 'good cause' standard, which demands specific factual allegations, not conclusory assertions.
“Good cause exists only where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that she is ... entitled to relief.”
A prisoner-plaintiff's bare, undetailed claim that a grievance was lost or discarded by prison staff does not create a genuine dispute defeating PLRA exhaustion, absent any showing that he attempted to refile or pursue available levels of appeal.
“Plaintiff has merely presented the Court with an unsubstantiated and conclusory allegation that he filed any grievance at all, and such an allegation is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact in light of Plaintiff's failure to pursue the issue.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs' objections are OVERRULED, that this Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and APPROVED, [Doc. 39], that defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. 19], be GRANTED, and that the case be DISMISSED.”
“Therefore, Defendants' motion [Doc. 15] will be GRANTED, and this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, that this Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and APPROVED, [Doc. 18], that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, [Doc. 8], is DENIED, and that defendant's motion for summary judgment, [Doc. 18], is GRANTED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, that this Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and APPROVED, [Doc. 14], that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, [Doc. 11], is DENIED, and that defendant's motion for summary judgment, [Doc. 12], is GRANTED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that this Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and APPROVED, and that the defendant's motions to suppress is DENIED. [Doc. 314].”
“For the reasons in the report and recommendation, which the Court adopts and incorporates into this Order, Mr. McClure's motion to suppress [Doc. 261] is DENIED.”
“For the reasons in the report and recommendation, which the Court adopts and incorporates into this Order, Defendants' motions [Docs. 36 & 41-42] are GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ complaint against the defendant Carlton in his official capacity is DISMISSED. ... Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the defendant Carlton in his individual capacity is DENIED.”
A fee-paid pretrial detainee's Section 1983 complaint, screened under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A. The court dismissed the police department and jail (not suable entities), abstained under Younger from claims touching the pending state prosecution, dismissed a private attorney and private apartment-company defendants for lack of state action, but allowed the medical-indifference claims against the jail's healthcare contractor and its on-site physician to proceed to service.
“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion [Doc. 95] will be denied.”
“It further is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. 96] and his motion to amend that motion to add a new ground for relief based on newly discovered evidence pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) [Doc. 110] both are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's renewed motion to compel [Doc. 118] will be denied.”
“plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Doc. 89], is DENIED”
“and defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. 92], is GRANTED.”
“Based on the above analysis, this Court finds that Plaintiff's motion to reconsider [Doc. 8] is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 6.5 days (N = 2).
- The sampled dockets spanned prisoner Sec. 1983 civil-rights suits (often filed as a linked miscellaneous case followed by a civil case), a qui tam False Claims Act suit, Social Security appeals, consumer/TCPA and personal-injury diversity suits, and civil-rights litigation against school boards over COVID-19 mask policy.
- Several sampled civil cases ended in stipulated or voluntary dismissal after settlement rather than a contested ruling, consistent with a civil docket where most cases resolve before judgment.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 11 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 6 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, not for Judge Greer: 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 | 933 | 9.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 139 | 7.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 724 | 9.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 59 | 20.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 11 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 933 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 845 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 762 | 10.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 921 | 12.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 949 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 803 | 10 months |
| Sep 2019 | 859 | 12.1 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 Greer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Greer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Greer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace