Mark S. Davis
How Judge Davis rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Davis
Mark Steven Davis is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Davis received a commission on June 23, 2008.
Judge Davis's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Davis'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 Davis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mosley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., he raised subject-matter jurisdiction on his own and remanded state-law mortgage claims to state court. References to the federal HAMP program did not make those claims arise under federal law.
“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 Certusview Technologies, LLC v. S & N Locating Services, LLC, he granted judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101 after finding the asserted electronic-manifest claims 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
In United States v. Diana Shipping Services, S.A., he denied a multiplicity challenge first raised after trial as untimely because the defendants had not raised the indictment challenge before trial.
“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.”
In Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk, Davis found excusable neglect for a late amendment request but made the extension conditional on reimbursing the city for costs and fees caused by the plaintiff’s failure to follow earlier orders.
“Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time WILL BE GRANTED UPON CONDITION that Plaintiff reimburse Defendant for its costs and expenses”
In Mosley v. Wells Fargo, Davis remanded the case for lack of federal jurisdiction but denied the plaintiff’s fee request. He found the defendants’ removal objectively reasonable in light of an unsettled question without controlling Fourth Circuit precedent.
“Defendants' removal of the instant case to this Court cannot be said to be objectively unreasonable.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time WILL BE GRANTED UPON CONDITION that Plaintiff reimburse Defendant for its costs and expenses”
“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.”
“Defendants' motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 16, 18, are GRANTED. Counts II, III, and VI are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. as are the portions of other counts premised upon the alleged selective warnings. Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.”
“Plaintiff's motions to proceed under a pseudonym and to seal his true identity, ECF Nos. 5, 6, are DENIED as moot.”
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.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 Davis: 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 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