Lawrence R. Leonard
How Judge Leonard rules, drawn from 6 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Leonard
Lawrence R. Leonard has served as a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Virginia since October 1, 2012. He is based in the court’s Norfolk Division.
Judge Leonard's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Leonard's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Leonard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Columbia Gas Transmission v. Ott, Leonard recommended summary judgment for the pipeline operator because Ott’s unverified interrogatory responses and unauthenticated exhibits did not rebut the engineer’s declaration about the easement encroachments.
“unsworn, unauthenticated documents cannot be considered on a motion for summary judgment ... the only evidence the undersigned has before it ... is the Parrish Declaration, which supports the removal.”
In Adams v. Naphcare, Inc., he recommended denying a motion to dismiss a wrongful-death claim: he found it plausible that a detainee's death resulted from the failure to transfer him for court-ordered mental-health treatment.
“it is not wholly improbable that a detainee, when kept in a jail despite a court order for his immediate transfer to receive necessary, in-patient mental health treatment, might die as a result of not receiving such treatment.”
Procedural preferences
He treats interlocutory denials as non-binding: he rejected a 'law of the case' argument that an earlier denial of a motion to dismiss the counterclaim foreclosed later summary judgment on the same pleading, noting such denials remain open to reconsideration until final judgment.
“Interlocutory orders, including denials of motions to dismiss, remain open to trial court reconsideration, and do not constitute the law of the case.”
In United States v. McGrann, he held that accepting McGrann's consented guilty plea triggered mandatory detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending sentencing.
“McGrann's guilty plea before the undersigned is binding such that, upon the acceptance of his plea, McGrann has been 'found guilty' pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3143(a)(2), and his immediate detention is required under this section.”
Cautions
In Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Ott, Leonard recommended granting Columbia's summary-judgment motion; the district judge adopted the recommendation. The quoted recommendation was not Leonard's final merits judgment.
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Columbia's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 28, be GRANTED”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Columbia's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 28, be GRANTED ... the court ... does hereby adopt and approve in full the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation ... Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that ... Ott's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 26, be DENIED ... the court ... DENIES the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“The Magistrate Judge filed the R & R on July 14, 2017, recommending the denial of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, and the granting of the Petition. ... Accordingly, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is DENIED”
“the Petition, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED; and Petitioner's sentence in the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk is VACATED in its entirety and his case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk for disposition on his convictions in accordance with Miller and Montgomery.”
“For these reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant Hart's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, be DENIED.”
Leonard issued this signed Opinion and Order himself while presiding by consent over a felony Rule 11 guilty-plea proceeding referred by the Chief District Judge. After accepting the defendant's guilty plea to a drug-conspiracy count, he held that 18 U.S.C. 3143(a) required immediate detention pending sentencing even though the government had not moved for it. He reasoned that a guilty plea accepted by a magistrate judge is binding, so the defendant has been 'found guilty,' following the Fourth Circuit's Breedlove and Gibson line and the Moffitt authority from the Western District of North Carolina. The order did not resolve a party motion.
“the Court finds that Evans failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her race-based retaliation claim under Title VII, and this claim as alleged in the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 72, as to her claim of retaliation under the ADA is GRANTED IN PART, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in the amount of $721.25 for the Plaintiff only against the Defendant, Larchmont Baptist Church Infant Care Center, Inc.”
“Plaintiff Hedwig Lismont's Motion Substantiating His Attorneys' Fees and Costs, ECF No. 118, is GRANTED IN PART, and Lismont is awarded $33,469 in attorneys' fees and $404.01 in costs, for a total award of $33,873.01.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No overall nature-of-suit distribution is computed: the record mixes his consent civil docket with cases only initially designated to him and with the criminal-duty rotation. The durations reported are only the confirmed consent civil cases.
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 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, not for Judge Leonard: 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 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,204 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,299 | 4.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 493 | 8.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 15 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,613 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,194 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,134 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,152 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,860 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,267 | 5.9 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 Leonard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Leonard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Leonard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace