Robert Stewart Ballou
How Judge Ballou rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ballou
Robert Stewart Ballou is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Ballou received a commission on March 9, 2023.
Judge Ballou's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Ballou'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 Ballou decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Title IX/employment-discipline case, the judge finds a comparator adequately pled at the motion-to-dismiss stage even where the defendant argues the comparator's circumstances differed, holding that evidentiary comparisons over how similar a comparator really was are not appropriate to resolve on a motion to dismiss.
“UVA's argument is not persuasive in the context of a motion to dismiss. UVA may be correct that Roe was treated differently than Correa for non-discriminatory reasons. However, this evidentiary inquiry is not appropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage.”
In Montoya v. Collins, Ballou denied the non-medical defendants’ summary-judgment motion on exhaustion because the prison’s grievance responses did not establish their asserted reason for rejecting the inmate’s grievances.
“It is defendants' burden to show a failure to exhaust, and they have not met it... It's simply not rational to repeatedly reject Montoya's regular grievances... for not indicating how he was affected personally or as a request for services.”
At summary judgment, a counterclaimant must identify concrete, causally connected damages; conclusory references to investigation or litigation expense do not create a triable damages issue.
“Such vagueness is fatal at this stage. A party cannot defeat summary judgment by invoking damages that are merely speculative.”
In Floyd’s prisoner medical-care suit, Ballou allowed deliberate-indifference claims against two medical providers to proceed because the alleged continuation of ineffective conservative treatment could support an inference of harmful delay.
“The allegations that continuing the same conservative treatment caused harm through delay of care are sufficient to allege a claim for deliberate indifference.”
Procedural preferences
In Vaughn's federal-prisoner suit, Ballou dismissed the Bivens claims after distinguishing a Fourth Circuit case in which officers had blocked grievance access; Vaughn had not alleged that fact.
“The Court's decision, however, was based upon one allegation that is not present in this case: The officers in Fields intentionally thwarted the plaintiff's access to the BOP's Administrative Remedy Program, cutting off his access to the alternative remedies that counsel against judicial extension of Bivens.”
In Carter's prisoner-retaliation case, Ballou denied a post-verdict request to expunge a disciplinary charge because the jury had found retaliatory motive but had not found the charge itself unwarranted.
“The jury’s verdict cannot be read as an unqualified decision that no disciplinary charge was appropriate, only that defendant’s decision to issue the charge was motivated by retaliation. ... An injunction requiring VDOC to expunge the charge from Carter’s record would be overstepping the court’s proper role under the circumstances of this case.”
In Wright's child-custody dispute, Ballou dismissed the federal civil-rights claims without prejudice because the requested relief would revisit the state custody proceeding.
“Although Wright brings her claims for retaliation and violation of due process under 42 U.S.C. 1983, each claim and request for relief seeks to relitigate her children's custody proceedings.”
Cautions
A motion to remand tied to a state statutory claim untested by any state court can be denied where the district judge predicts, based on the statute's own exclusive-remedy provision, that the state's highest court would not recognize a wrongful-discharge claim built on it: a ruling the Fourth Circuit later vacated and remanded on appeal, illustrating the risk in this kind of Erie prediction on a novel state statute.
“No courts -- Virginia or federal -- have addressed the issue of whether this nascent statute may provide the basis for a Bowman claim. Thus, the Court must predict how the Virginia Supreme Court would rule on the issue.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
A pro se Virginia inmate sued the Virginia Parole Board under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arguing 'sovereign citizen' theories that Virginia law did not apply to him without his consent. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) and dismissed it as frivolous, noting the rhetoric bore the hallmarks of sovereign-citizen theory that courts nationwide have repeatedly rejected.
“For the reasons stated, I will grant the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Vaughn's complaint. Because this fully disposes of the case, there is no need to address the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, which shall be dismissed as moot.”
“there is no need to address the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, which shall be dismissed as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 7, is DENIED; The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 13, is GRANTED; The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED”
“The Court, having separately entered an Opinion and Order adopting the Report and Recommendation, denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granting the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, and affirming the decision of the Commissioner”
“and a Motion to Amend the Judgment to add injunctive relief, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(a) (ECF NO. 67). For the reasons stated below, I will deny the plaintiff’s motion.”
“I will deny Allen's motions to vacate the prior judgment.”
“Defendants' motion is GRANTED as to Correa's claim for gender discrimination under Title VII, his claim under the Virginia Human Rights Act, his personal capacity claims against Defendants Hutson and Smith, and his request for damages under 18 U.S.C. 1983. The motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED.”
“the non-medical defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED”
“the medical defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Montoya's claims against the medical defendants are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Because Wright's complaint in essence seeks review of her failed state court child custody claim, this Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction.”
“I GRANT Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 32) and dismiss this action with prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Anilkumar Patel's Complaint (Case No. 7:21-cv-402, Dkt. 6) is DENIED, and these five cases will be set for trial.”
“I DENY Lambert's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 18), and GRANT the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 16.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- As a newly-elevated district judge, Ballou's docket mixes a large volume of pro se prisoner civil-rights suits and habeas petitions (each referred to one of the court's three magistrate judges, Joel C.
- Hoppe, Pamela M. Sargent, or C.
- Kailani Memmer, for pretrial management), Social Security appeals, removed diversity and employment cases, and a smaller volume of civil forfeiture and criminal matters carried over from his Roanoke-division magistrate caseload.
- Because he was elevated mid-docket in March 2023, an unbounded case enumeration under his name would also surface cases inherited from his predecessor, Judge James P.
- Jones, filed and in some instances terminated before Ballou's own tenure began; the sample here is bounded to cases filed on or after his March 9, 2023 commission date to avoid that distortion.
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 | 29 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 29 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 31 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 34 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 45 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 33 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 19 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 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 Western District of Virginia, not for Judge Ballou: 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 | 517 | 9.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 48 | 6.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 447 | 9.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 14 | 13.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 517 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 535 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 511 | 11 months |
| Sep 2022 | 610 | 14.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 655 | 11.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 588 | 10.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 618 | 11.3 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 Ballou with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ballou, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ballou's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace