Amanda R. Burch
How Judge Burch rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Burch
Amanda R. Burch became a United States Magistrate Judge in the Lubbock Division of the Northern District of Texas in August 2024. She earned her undergraduate and law degrees from Texas Tech University and previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Lubbock.
Judge Burch's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Burch, 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
No judge's copy is required for electronically filed documents.
“Judge Burch does not require a judge's copy for documents filed by electronic means.”
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).
- Special Order 19-2: Service, Access, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Miscellaneous Order 61-1: Restrictions on Electronic Filing of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Miscellaneous Order 61: Electronic Case Filing ↗
- Special Order 19-1: Second Amended Order Regarding Public Access to Certain Documents ↗
How Judge Burch decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Denelsbeck v. Delacruz, Magistrate Judge Burch assumed the prisoner had stated an excessive-force claim but recommended dismissal on qualified immunity because existing precedent did not clearly establish that the brief tight handcuffing was unconstitutional.
“even accepting that Denelsbeck has stated a claim and assuming Delacruz had impure motive, existing precedent does not support the finding that Delacruz's actions were objectively unreasonable. ... Delacruz is entitled to qualified immunity, and Denelsbeck's remaining claim should be dismissed.”
In Barron's suit over deductions from veterans' benefits, Magistrate Judge Burch recommended dismissing official-capacity damages and retrospective-declaration claims on sovereign-immunity grounds. She found prospective injunctive relief outside that bar but recommended dismissal because the complaint did not state a federal violation.
“Barron's official-capacity claims against McLane for monetary relief and retrospective declaratory relief are barred by sovereign immunity, while his claims for prospective injunctive relief are not. Even so, Barron has not pleaded sufficient facts to state a violation of federal or constitutional law.”
In Hereford's housing-related case, Magistrate Judge Burch recommended denying interim relief and dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Hereford had not filed an amended complaint after the court directed him to cure the pleading.
“even affording Hereford's complaint a liberal construction, he has not demonstrated that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. The undersigned therefore recommends the district judge deny Hereford's TRO and dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
Burch's FCR addressed a pro se in forma pauperis landlord-tenant dispute over improvements allegedly made in lieu of rent. She recommended denying the in forma pauperis application and TRO motion and dismissing without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint pleaded only Texas law, with neither a federal question nor diversity; alternatively, she recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff filed no amended complaint and did not register for electronic filing despite warnings. Grounding quote: 'the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the United States District Judge: (1) deny Hereford's IFP application...; (2) deny his motion for TRO...; and (3) dismiss his complaint without prejudice.' The recommendation shows her jurisdiction-first discipline: a court must confirm subject-matter jurisdiction before reaching a TRO.
“the undersigned recommends that the United States District Judge (1) GRANT-in-part McLane's Rule 12(b)(1) motion and dismiss without prejudice Barron's official-capacity claims against McLane for money damages and retrospective declaratory relief; and (2) GRANT McLane's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismiss with prejudice Barron's claims against McLane in her official capacity for injunctive relief and those against McLane in her individual capacity.”
“the undersigned recommends that the United States District Judge GRANT Delacruz's motion to dismiss and DISMISS Denelsbeck's claim for excessive force with prejudice.”
“United States Magistrate Judge Amanda R. Burch made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. ... the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The undersigned recommends that the United States District Judge DISMISS with prejudice all Baiza's claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”
“the undersigned recommends that the United States District Judge dismiss all Jaycox's claims, except those brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act based on the alleged denial of single-cell housing. As to those claims, the undersigned recommends that the district judge require Defendants TDCJ and Texas Tech University to answer or otherwise plead.”
“the undersigned magistrate judge recommends that the United States District Judge GRANT Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 26.”
“the undersigned recommends that the United States District Judge DENY the motion without prejudice to her right to request injunctive relief in the future should circumstances change.”
“The undersigned recommends that the United States District Judge GRANT Plaintiff's motion and dismiss this action without prejudice.”
“the undersigned magistrate judge RECOMMENDS that the United States District Judge dismiss this action without prejudice for want of prosecution under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“the Court overrules Johnson’s objections to Judge Burch’s FCR and expressly accepts and adopts her findings, conclusions, and recommendation.”
Adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and overruling the pro se plaintiff's objections, the district court found the complaint asserted no federal question and no complete diversity, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
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 |
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 Northern District of Texas, not for Judge Burch: 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 | 4,103 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 829 | 4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 3,228 | 6.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 11 | 16.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 35 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 4,103 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,648 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,808 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,698 | 56 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,094 | 19.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,294 | 13.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,367 | 6.9 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 Burch with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Burch, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Burch's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace