Thomas Tullidge Cullen
How Judge Cullen rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cullen
Thomas Tullidge Cullen is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Cullen received a commission on September 15, 2020.
Judge Cullen's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Cullen'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 Cullen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On qualified immunity, the court looks past the absence of a case with identical facts and asks whether the core constitutional principle was clearly established, treating retaliation against protected speech as a settled category even in a novel factual setting (a college coach and a kneeling protest).
“defendants 'can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances,' so long as the law provided 'fair warning' that their conduct was unconstitutional.”
In Harrison v. Montgomery County School Board, Cullen found that the teacher’s alleged reprimand, intimidation, and negative evaluation, together with specific claimed harms, plausibly supported retaliation at the pleading stage. He denied the Board’s partial dismissal motion.
“these allegations are specific enough for Harrison’s retaliation claim to proceed to discovery.”
Procedural preferences
In Moore's prisoner civil-rights case, Cullen dismissed the claim against Dr. MacDonald without prejudice and gave Moore 21 days to seek reopening with a more detailed amended complaint.
“because Moore's allegations could state a plausible claim for relief as to Dr. MacDonald with further factual development, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice as to Dr. MacDonald. Moore will have 21 days to file a motion to reopen the case with an amended complaint against Dr. MacDonald, if he so chooses.”
Cautions
On review of a magistrate judge's discovery order, the court gave the objecting party's arguments a full hearing on the papers but ultimately deferred to the magistrate judge's relevance analysis, ordering full compliance rather than narrowing the discovery obligation.
“overruling 109 Objections ... The Town is ORDERED to produce all documents and communications related to its former outside counsel ... investigation of and involvement in Plaintiff Jennifer Berry Brown's sexual harassment allegations.”
In Taylor v. Wilson, Cullen granted summary judgment on the remaining excessive force claims after finding the detainee had made no required informal grievance requests and had not shown the process was unavailable. He denied the detainee’s pending motions as moot.
“Here, the undisputed facts in the record show that Taylor failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the IH as to his claims against Wilson.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
A pro se inmate proceeding in forma pauperis sued the Western Virginia Regional Jail superintendent, a physician, and the jail's medical contractor over delayed treatment for a liver referral and hernia. On sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Cullen found no cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against any named defendant because the allegations against the physician amounted to a doctor-patient disagreement and the other defendants were not tied to specific conduct. He dismissed while allowing 21 days to move to reopen with an amended complaint against the physician.
“For the reasons discussed above, the court will grant the respondent’s motion to dismiss.”
“For these reasons, the court will deny Adair's motion for summary judgment, and this matter will proceed to trial.”
“For these reasons, Hallacher’s complaint fails to state claims for breach of contract or conversion, and the court will grant Allstate’s motion to dismiss.”
“For these reasons, and because the parties’ factual dispute and the basis of Defendants’ motion are inapposite, the court will deny Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.”
“For the reasons stated above, the court does not find that PHS committed fraud on the court. A separate order will issue.”
“For the reasons stated, the court will grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”
Cullen dismissed a pro se prisoner's amended complaint against a municipal defendant sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Verbatim disposition: "For the reasons stated, the court will dismiss Helton’s amended complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
“For the forgoing reasons, the court will award attorney’s fees to Scearce, the prevailing party, in the amount of $22,500. Costs will also be awarded in the amount of $1,914.75.”
“For all of these reasons, the court will grant Divens’s motion to exclude the late-noticed expert testimony and deny the motion to continue the trial.”
“For these reasons, the court will grant Walmart’s motion for summary judgment.”
“For these reasons, no sanctions or finding instruction is necessary. Plaintiff failed to establish that Walmart breached the standard of care it owed to Plaintiff, and her motion for sanctions is untimely and meritless.”
“Because there is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Gowen’s failure to file a grievance regarding his placement in administrative segregation, he failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies as required by federal law. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will therefore be granted.”
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 23 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 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 Cullen: 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 Cullen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cullen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cullen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace