Hal R. Ray, Jr.
How Judge Ray rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ray
Hal R. Ray Jr. became a United States Magistrate Judge in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas in June 2016. He earned a law degree from the University of Texas and previously clerked for District Judge Halbert O. Woodward and practiced law in Fort Worth.
Judge Ray's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ray, 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 Ray 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 Ray decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In an arbitration-award dispute, he recommended confirming the award while rejecting requested partial vacatur, citing the narrow scope of judicial review.
“Judicial review of an arbitration award is extraordinarily narrow and exceedingly deferential.”
In Porras v. Curd, he granted the county defendants’ dismissal motion only in part, preserving the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim based on the sheriff’s own conduct while dismissing several other theories.
“except for her claim arising from the conduct of Sheriff Curd himself;”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge O’Connor GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Abate Pending Appraisal (ECF No. 24) and abate this case until the parties complete the appraisal process provided for in the insurance policy.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge Pittman DENY Miga’s Application and Memorandum to Quash Writs of Garnishment and Request for Hearing (ECF No. 37).”
“the undersigned recommends that United States District Judge Mark T. Pittman GRANT the Motion, REVERSE this case, and REMAND it to the Commissioner for further administrative action.”
“the undersigned recommends that United States District Judge Reed O’Connor DENY Johnson’s request for reconsideration. The Court further determines Johnson has now pleaded her ‘best case’ and recommends Judge O’Connor DISMISS her case with prejudice.”
Ray's March 3, 2022 FCR recommended that District Judge O'Connor dismiss a pro se plaintiff's suit sua sponte and without prejudice under Rule 4(m) for failure to perfect service within 90 days despite two warnings and 142 elapsed days. He also recommended denying the plaintiff's pending motions, including summary-judgment and default-judgment motions, as moot. Quote: 'the undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed O’Connor DISMISS this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).'
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge O’Connor DENY Plaintiff’s Motions for Entry of Default and Default Judgment as premature (ECF Nos. 32, 38).”
“Substantial evidence in the record does not support the ALJ’s findings regarding El Neil’s RFC due to a lack of supporting medical evidence. The Court thus REVERSES and REMANDS this action for further administrative proceedings.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed O’Connor GRANT the Unopposed Motion.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Mark Pittman GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) and DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint within the 14 days allotted for objections to this Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Mark T. Pittman GRANT Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 29 and 34) and DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge O’Connor GRANT the Motions (ECF Nos. 36-37) and DISMISS Ogle’s claims against Defendants Iman Wayne Davidson, Leah Michelle Davidson, Scot M. Hilbert, and Dana D. Hilbert without prejudice.”
“recommends that the Defendants' motions be GRANTED and that all claims against them be DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The caseload description is illustrative of the assignments and orders reviewed, not a complete enumeration of Judge Ray's docket.
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 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 Ray: 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 Ray with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ray, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ray's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace