Jill E. McCook
How Judge McCook rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McCook
Jill E. McCook became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee in January 2022. She previously clerked for a federal district judge, practiced at private law firms, and worked as an attorney for the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Judge McCook's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge McCook, 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.
- Judicial Preferences ↗
- Consent Scheduling Order - Bench Trial ↗
- Consent Scheduling Order - Jury Trial ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Any request for an order must be by motion in writing.
“Any request for an order must be by motion in writing.”
Motions
Judge McCook prefers oral argument on motions.
“Oral argument preferred.”
Discovery
Procedural issues may be handled by conference call; substance issues, (for example, privilege claims) are by written motion and hearing in court.
“Procedural issues may be handled by conference call; substance issues, (for example, privilege claims) are by written motion and hearing in 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 McCook decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a felon-in-possession Second Amendment challenge, her recommendation treated a defendant's full criminal history, not just the age or number of convictions, as the touchstone for whether he could be disarmed as 'dangerous,' finding his history of home invasion and drug trafficking with firearms met that standard.
“Defendant's prior criminal 'history shows he is dangerous'”
On a suppression motion, she separated the taint of an unlawful arrest from an otherwise-lawful traffic stop, finding that a K-9 sniff conducted by an officer uninvolved in the unlawful arrest was untainted by it, even though the same stop produced both the unlawful arrest and the dog alert.
“Officer Marlow assisted in surrounding the Jeep at gunpoint, his participation in the detention of the Jeep's occupants did not lead to the discovery of any evidence. Instead, Officer Marlow left the detention of the occupants to the other officers, retrieved his drug detection dog, and led his dog around the Jeep.”
Procedural preferences
In Jenkins, she denied the claimant’s summary judgment motion, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and affirmed the agency’s decision.
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19] and GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 22]. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
In Goss v. Securitas Security Services, McCook recommended allowing the pro se plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims to proceed beyond initial screening while dismissing his Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Section 1985(3), Fourth Amendment, and Section 241 claims.
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Judge DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and 18 U.S.C. § 241, but allow his employment discrimination claims to proceed beyond the initial screening phase.”
Cautions
In Stafford v. Psychiatric Services of East Tennessee, LLC, she recommended denying default judgment without prejudice because the complaint contained no allegations about an opt-in plaintiff, and recommended allowing an amended complaint.
“the Amended Complaint does not include any allegations about Nicole Menard, 'so there are no well-pleaded allegations as to [her] that can be deemed as admitted by Defendants.'”
The judge allowed a timely complaint amendment while rejecting proposed constructive discharge and negligent misrepresentation claims as futile.
“The Court will allow Plaintiff to amend her complaint, except for her constructive discharge claims under the ADA and FMLA and her negligent misrepresentation claim, which the Court finds futile.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19] and GRANTS the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 22]. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“the Court finds the Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) [Doc. 16] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 13] is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g).”
“For the reasons more fully stated above, the undersigned GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [Doc. 4].”
“it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2412 [Doc. 21] be GRANTED, and a judgment awarding Plaintiff the amount of $3,705.30 in attorney's fees pursuant to the EAJA be entered.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Judge deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment [Doc. 29] without prejudice to renew and sua sponte grant Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that includes the claims of the opt-in Plaintiff.”
“The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Judge DISMISS Plaintiff's claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3), the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and 18 U.S.C. Section 241, but allow his employment discrimination claims to proceed beyond the initial screening phase.”
“The Report ultimately recommends that the undersigned deny the Motion [Doc. 60] because Defendant's prior criminal 'history shows he is dangerous' ... the Court (1) ADOPTS and ACCEPTS the Report's recommendation [Doc. 87], (2) OVERRULES Defendant's Objections [Doc. 88], and (3) DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 60].”
“The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant Michael Alexander Mahone's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines [Doc. 96].”
“The Court hereby GRANTS in part defendant's motion to suppress [Doc. 56]. Because the evidence seized from the Jeep is not fruit of defendant's arrest, it is not suppressed. However, the currency seized from defendant's person is suppressed.”
“the Court agrees with Judge McCook's recommendation and reasoning, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 57]. Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue [Doc. 30] is DENIED.”
“the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Judge deny Defendant's Scales Motion and Memorandum to Suppress Evidence Seized at 9310 Aldergate Way, Apt. #4107 [Doc. 132] ... the undersigned concludes, however, that the evidence seized in the execution of the search warrant need not be suppressed because the officers relied on the search warrant in good faith.”
“the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Judge deny ... Defendant Davis's Motion and Memorandum of Law to Suppress Evidence Seized as the Result of a Traffic Stop [Doc. 134].”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Judge DENY Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Two [Doc. 34].”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Her consent-jurisdiction civil docket is dominated by Social Security disability appeals, with a secondary vein of personal-injury and premises-liability suits, employment/civil-rights cases, contract disputes, and insurance-coverage cases, several inherited from her predecessor's docket when she took the bench.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 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 Eastern District of Tennessee, not for Judge McCook: 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 McCook with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McCook, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McCook's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace