William Lynn Campbell Jr.
How Judge Campbell rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Campbell
William Lynn Campbell, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Campbell received a commission on January 12, 2018.
Judge Campbell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Campbell, 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
Filing
Do not send chambers paper copies of filings unless Campbell requests them.
“Judge Campbell does not want chamber copies of filings, unless he requests them.”
Motions
File extension motions before the deadline unless extraordinary circumstances justify a later request.
“Absent extraordinary circumstances, motions for extensions will not be granted if not filed before the deadline that is the subject of the motion.”
Discovery
Before filing a discovery motion when Campbell is asked to rule, lead counsel must meet in person and then join a telephone conference with the court.
“When called upon to rule on such matters, Judge Campbell requires an in-person meeting involving lead counsel before followed by a joint telephone conferences with the Court before the filing of motions to compel or other discovery motions.”
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 Campbell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Felts v. National Indoor RV Center, he found that changes in the employer's stated reason could support a finding of pretext and denied summary judgment on the surviving discrimination and retaliation claims.
“An employer's changing rationale for making an adverse employment decision can be evidence of pretext. ... a reasonable jury could determine that NIRVC’s proffered reason was pretext for discrimination.”
Procedural preferences
In Felts v. National Indoor RV Center, Campbell read the Tennessee Pregnant Workers Fairness Act's 'may include' accommodation list as illustrative rather than exhaustive.
“the statute provides that ‘Reasonable Accommodation may include’ the accommodations provided, demonstrating that the listed accommodations, while instructive, are not exhaustive or exclusive.”
In Nolt v. Knowles, he reviewed and adopted an unobjected-to magistrate judge recommendation and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
“The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 202) and concludes that it should be ADOPTED and APPROVED.”
In Patel, Campbell applied controlling appellate law to a no-bond immigration detention and called out the government’s omission of that authority.
“Respondents’ omission of any reference to Lopez-Campos in its discussion of the lawfulness of Petitioner’s detention in the present matter is troubling.”
In Ellis, he denied the city’s summary-judgment motion because it asked the court to view disputed accommodation evidence in the city’s favor.
“Moreover, the City’s arguments are premised on a view of the evidence and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to itself, which the Court cannot do in resolving a moving party’s motion for summary judgment.”
Cautions
In Felts, Campbell initially dismissed a Title VII religious-discrimination claim because the employee's request for medical leave did not itself convey a religious belief to the employer. He later vacated that part of the dismissal on reconsideration.
“Felts’ leave request ‘is not an expression of religious belief’ and does not by itself ‘plausibly show that [Felts] informed [NIRVC] [of] her alleged religious beliefs.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“NIRVC’s motion will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“DOE’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED, and the matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“the ZK Ranches Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 141) is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Hensley, Barnett, and Mink (Doc. No. 159) is GRANTED”
“the Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Parker and Williams (Doc. No. 168) is GRANTED.”
“the motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 44) is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and the Court ORDERS as follows”
“motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 39) will be DENIED”
“DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 61) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 475 days (N = 7).
The sampled civil docket includes False Claims Act, consumer-credit, disability and employment discrimination, immigration mandamus, insurance-coverage, and prisoner civil-rights matters, alongside a substantial federal criminal docket. Many civil cases are referred to magistrate judges.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 13 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 16 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 19 |
| Sep 2020 | 7 | 13 |
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 United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, not for Judge Campbell: 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 | 1,138 | 8.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 576 | 7.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 543 | 9.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 28.1 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,138 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,262 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,090 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 987 | 11 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,007 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 890 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 982 | 10.7 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 Campbell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Campbell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Campbell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace