Mike J. Dumitru
How Judge Dumitru rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dumitru
Mike J. Dumitru became a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee in January 2025. He previously practiced law in Chattanooga and served as a Tennessee circuit court judge in Hamilton County.
Judge Dumitru's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Dumitru, 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
Motions
Therefore, for all matters not implicating the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, each party generally will be permitted to file only one dispositive motion at each stage of litigation (i.e., one motion to dismiss and one motion for summary judgment per party).
“Therefore, for all matters not implicating the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, each party generally will be permitted to file only one dispositive motion at each stage of litigation (i.e., one motion to dismiss and one motion for summary judgment per party).”
Discovery
Bring unresolved discovery disputes promptly by motion specifying the relief sought.
“If they are unsuccessful, the parties shall bring such disputes to the Court’s attention promptly, preferably in the form of a motion specifying the relief requested.”
Sealing
To file a document under seal, the parties must move for leave under the applicable rules, keeping in mind the high value placed on public access to judicial records.
“To file a document under seal, the parties must move for leave under the applicable rules, keeping in mind the high value placed on public access to judicial records.”
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 Dumitru decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Arnold, Dumitru found probable cause on a supervised-release petition and ordered detention after the defendant waived preliminary and detention hearings while reserving a later request.
“Defendant also waived his right to a detention hearing but reserved the right to request a detention hearing upon motion at a later date.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, this Court RECOMMENDS Defendant's motion to withdraw her not guilty plea to Count One of the Indictment be granted, her plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment be accepted, the District Judge adjudicate Defendant guilty of the charges set forth in Count One of the Indictment, and a decision on whether to accept the plea agreement be deferred until sentencing.”
“MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiffs request for relief [Doc. 13; Doc. 14] is DENIED. The Commissioners request that the final decision denying benefits be affirmed [Doc. 16] is GRANTED. This case is CLOSED.”
“MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's request for relief [Doc. 15; Doc. 20] is DENIED; and (2) the Commissioners request that the final decision denying benefits be affirmed [Doc. 17] is GRANTED; and(3) this case is CLOSED.”
“MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs request for relief [Doc. 13; Doc. 14] is DENIED; and (2) the Commissioners request that the final decision denying benefits be affirmed [Doc. 15; Doc. 17] is GRANTED; and (3) this case is CLOSED.”
“Defendant Aponte's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 16] is GRANTED, Defendant Aponte's motion for a status conference [Doc. 26] and Plaintiff's motion at Docket No. 27 are DENIED as moot, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 81 Motion in Limine. Mr. Shipleys remaining federal claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Counts I and II) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Mr. Shipleys remaining state law claims (Counts V, VI, VII, and VIII) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“ORDER denying without prejudice to refiling re 30 Motion to Amend/Correct. Any re-filed motion SHALL comply with all applicable Federal and Local Rules, and SHALL be filed on or before MARCH 24, 2025, as required by the Courts March 10 Order [Doc.29].”
“The Government's motion that Defendant be DETAINED WITHOUT BAIL pending further order from this Court is GRANTED.”
“The Court therefore GRANTS the parties' motions in part, and holds that evidence offered solely for the purpose of demonstrating conduct either party contends constituted a breach of the Agreement or the duty of good faith and fair dealing is excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.”
“IFP motions be DENIED as moot.”
“On July 21, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Dumitru filed a report and recommendation recommending the Court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 41]. [Doc. 68]... Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation [Doc. 68] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 41] is therefore DENIED.”
“Therefore, this Court RECOMMENDS Defendant's motion to withdraw his not guilty plea to Count One of the Indictment be granted, his plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment be accepted, the District Judge adjudicate Defendant guilty of the charges set forth in Count One of the Indictment, and a decision on whether to accept the plea agreement be deferred until sentencing.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- His docket spans a full generalist magistrate caseload: Social Security disability appeals (mostly inherited, both his own consent-jurisdiction decisions and a few still pending), civil-rights and prisoner litigation (excessive force, conditions of confinement), commercial contract and products-liability removals, employment discrimination, and, as a duty/referral magistrate, criminal complaints, search warrants, detention hearings, plea colloquies, and suppression-motion recommendations.
- A civil-rights case against McMinn County sheriff's deputies (Spakosky) shows him presiding over a fully-consented case from filing through a bodycam-evidentiary-hearing summary-judgment ruling toward an upcoming jury trial.
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 |
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 Dumitru: 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 Dumitru with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dumitru, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dumitru's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace