Mark S. Davis
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.”
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
This record is a THIN first slice (N=7 motions across 5 published opinions, 2010-2015) for a high-volume judge who served as Chief Judge of the E.D. Va. (2018-2025). Do NOT read the counts as a grant rate or a merits tendency. The slice is deliberately subject-matter- and posture-diverse (criminal, patent, Lanham, remand, pro se procedural) but small. A step-5 deepen toward the ~25-40 floor is recommended (more dispositive MTD/MSJ rulings; his Norfolk-Division civil and criminal docket).
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for judgment on pleadings N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for acquittal N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for attorney fees N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for extension of time N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
From the reasoning-layer sample plus his public profile (NOT a counted distribution): Davis's E.D. Va. docket (Norfolk Division) spans criminal/maritime-environmental (United States v. Diana Shipping -- APPS/MARPOL), patent (CertusView -- 35 U.S.C. 101), Lanham Act / cybersquatting (Zinner), mortgage/HAMP and consumer (Mosley), and voting/civil-rights (Perry-Bey). Norfolk's docket is notably heavy in admiralty/maritime and federal criminal work. He served as Chief Judge of the court 2018-2025.