Mark S. Davis
How Judge Davis rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Davis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He polices subject-matter jurisdiction independently and will remand sua sponte: state-law contract/tort claims that merely reference a federal program (HAMP) do not 'arise under' federal law, especially where the federal statute creates no private right of action.
“the Court sua sponte DISMISSES this matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, and REMANDS this matter to the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia.”
On patent-eligibility he is willing to dispose of cases early, at the pleadings stage, under 35 U.S.C. 101: granting judgment on the pleadings that the asserted 'electronic manifest' claims were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion.”
In the 2026 immigration-detention orders reviewed, he read 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226 in light of constitutional avoidance and the due-process interest in physical liberty, ordering individualized § 1226(a) bond hearings for petitioners already present in the United States.
“However, this Court ultimately agrees with the emerging majority view among district judges, especially the constitutional analysis in Romero.”
Procedural preferences
He enforces the pre-trial timing rules in criminal cases strictly: a defect-in-the-indictment theory such as multiplicity must be raised before trial under Rule 12(b)(3), and a post-trial Rule 29 motion advancing it for the first time is waived absent good cause.
“To the extent that Defendants advance a new post-trial 'multiplicity' theory seeking dismissal of Counts 5, 6, 8 and 9, such newly advanced theory is denied as untimely because challenges to an indictment are deemed waived if not advanced prior to trial.”
He extends genuine procedural leeway to pro se litigants, granting a late extension of time on an excusable-neglect finding and convening a hearing to develop the record, while still expressing disfavor at non-compliance with court orders and weighing conditions on the relief.
“excusable neglect is present, and Plaintiffs motion for extension should be granted.”
On a fee request after remand he applies the Martin v. Franklin Capital standard: fees under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) are denied where the removing party had an objectively reasonable basis: here, an unsettled question on which the Fourth Circuit had not yet ruled.
“Defendants' removal of the instant case to this Court cannot be said to be objectively unreasonable.”
Cautions
The reasoning sample contains thirteen motions across eleven signed decisions and remains too targeted to establish a general merits tendency. Six outcomes are near-parallel 2026 immigration-detention petitions applying the same statutory analysis, so they should not be read as six independent subject-matter signals.
“Accordingly, Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition is GRANTED in part.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Having considered all of the relevant circumstances, the Court finds that, on its face, this is a set of circumstances meriting relief. ... Accordingly, excusable neglect is present, and Plaintiffs motion for extension should be granted.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES this matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, and REMANDS this matter to the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia.”
“In light of the Court's conclusion that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims in this matter, the Court does not reach a decision regarding Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
“Defendants' removal of the instant case to this Court cannot be said to be objectively unreasonable. ... Consequently, Plaintiffs request for attorney's fees will be denied.”
“This matter is before the Court on Defendants' consolidated post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal on Counts 5, 6, 8 and 9. ECF No. 113. ... For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is DENIED.”
“In such motion, Defendants contend that the claims of the patents asserted against them by CertusView Technologies, LLC ... are invalid for failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. ... For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 26. The Court GRANTS IN PART such motion with respect to damages for Plaintiffs section 8131 claim. In all other respects, such motion is DENIED IN PART.”
“Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2241 Petition is GRANTED in part. ECF No. 1. Respondent is ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a standard § 1226(a) bond hearing before an Immigration Judge on or after July 21, 2026, but not later than July 28, 2026.”
“Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2241 Petition is GRANTED in part. ECF No. 1. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a standard § 1226(a) bond hearing before an Immigration Judge on or after July 28, 2026, but not later than August 4, 2026.”
“Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2241 Petition is GRANTED in part. ECF No. 1. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a standard § 1226(a) bond hearing before an Immigration Judge on or after July 29, 2026, but not later than August 5, 2026.”
“Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2241 Petition is GRANTED in part. ECF No. 1. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a standard § 1226(a) bond hearing before an Immigration Judge on or after July 31, 2026, but not later than August 7, 2026.”
“Accordingly, Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition is GRANTED in part. ECF No. 1. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a standard § 1226(a) bond hearing before an Immigration Judge on or after August 10, 2026, but not later than August 17, 2026.”
“Accordingly, Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition is GRANTED in part. ECF No. 1. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a standard § 1226(a) bond hearing before an Immigration Judge on or after August 18, 2026, but not later than August 25, 2026.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Sat in the Norfolk and Newport News Divisions and served as the court's Chief Judge during this window.
- His docket runs heavily to pro-se prisoner civil-rights and state/federal habeas, Social Security and 2255 matters, and short diversity removals, with a thinner band of contested employment litigation (FLSA wage-and-hour, Title VII), consumer-finance/TCPA, and mortgage-servicing disputes.
- Qualitative mix from the enumerated dockets, not a counted distribution.
Draft for Judge Davis with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Davis, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Davis's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace