John Preston Bailey
How Judge Bailey rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bailey
John Preston Bailey is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Bailey received a commission on March 19, 2007.
Judge Bailey's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Bailey'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 Bailey decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Phoenix Drilling, Inc. v. Mammoth Resource Partners, Inc., Bailey remanded a case because the defendant filed its notice of removal after the statutory 30-day deadline. He rejected the defendant's reliance on an agreement extending its time to answer, which did not extend the removal deadline.
“Agreements between parties cannot extend Section 1446(b)'s 30 day time limitation... Any unilateral reliance by defense counsel was unreasonable.”
On competing summary-judgment motions in a products-liability case, the judge let disputed expert testimony alone carry a claim past summary judgment, without independently weighing whose expert was more credible.
“This dispute over the details surrounding the hose assembly's manufacture and ultimate sale constitute a genuine issue of material facts precluding summary judgment on this count.”
In an oil-and-gas royalty case, the judge declined to treat the existence of a lease as automatically barring related tort claims. At the pleading stage, allegations of concealed deductions through affiliate sales were enough to keep fraud and conversion theories alive as potentially independent misconduct.
“the tortious conduct must be truly independent of the contractual relationship in order to survive dismissal. ... dismissing plaintiff’s claims simply because the parties’ relationship originated in contract would be inappropriate.”
In a preliminary injunction dispute over college athletic eligibility, the judge treated the loss of an upcoming playing season as irreparable harm that money damages could not repair.
“the inability to play in the upcoming (or ongoing) seasons cannot be ‘compensated after the fact by money damages.’”
Procedural preferences
In Urban v. Ryan, Bailey found that the plaintiff’s objections did not warrant de novo review of the report and recommendation. He nevertheless reviewed the record de novo, found the report accurate, and adopted it.
“This Court finds that plaintiff has provided no objection which warrants de novo review of the R&R. A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge’s report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law.”
In Francisco v. Tibbs, Bailey granted summary judgment after the plaintiff’s deposition showed he had not appealed his grievances, including grievances that went unanswered.
“Importantly, plaintiff testified that he did not appeal any of the grievances he filed while he was housed on Unit A-8.”
At the pleading stage, the judge rejected water waste alone as fraud but let a counterclaim proceed where it alleged affirmative acts concealing the conduct before inspections.
“However, to the extent MCCR alleges plaintiff concealed a scheme to defraud MCCR by removing rocks and turning off the hydrant prior to MCCR’s inspections in an effort to hide the waste of water, such waste being shouldered by MCCR in the form of increased water bills, this Court is satisfied at this stage that MCCR’s allegations meet the requisite pleading standard for a claim of fraud by concealment.”
Cautions
In a Section 2241 case, he found that the petitioner could not satisfy the savings-clause test because the offenses of conviction remained crimes and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
“[T]he crimes for which petitioner was convicted remain criminal offenses; accordingly, he cannot satisfy the second prong of Jones.”
At summary judgment on a county employee’s political-association claim, the judge required evidence linking the termination to an official policy or widespread practice. A single employment decision did not establish municipal liability on that record.
“Evidence surrounding a single employment decision, without more, is insufficient to establish municipal liability under § 1983.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is hereby GRANTED, and this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Upshur County.”
“Judgment—Southwestern Energy Company, SWN Well Services, LLC, SWN Drilling Company, LLC, SWN Water Resources Company, LLC, and SWN Production Company, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 172] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendant JGB Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 174] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [Doc. 19] is ADOPTED and petitioner's objections [Doc. 21] are OVERRULED. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 12] is GRANTED and petitioner's petition [Doc. 1] is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant William Valentino (Doc. 4), the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Frank Jezioro (Doc. 6), and the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Mike Pizzino, Howard Shinaberry, and Sean Duffield (Doc. 8) will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The claims based upon the allegedly illegal searches set forth in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 are hereby DISMISSED.”
“the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) or in the Alternative, Motion to Stay Pending Supreme Court Review [Doc. 71] is DENIED.”
“Defendant Todd A. Kruger's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 140] is hereby DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 104] is DENIED.”
“the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [Doc. 52[ is AFFIRMED, defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 46] is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [Doc. 18] is hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Petitioner's objections [Doc. 20] are OVERRULED. The Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] is GRANTED and the Petition [Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [Doc. 15] is ADOPTED, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 8] is GRANTED and the Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1] is DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 47} should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, this Court further ORDERS that plaintiffs Complaint [Doc. 1] be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the pro se defendant's Letter construed as a Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Crim. Doc. 81; Civil Doc. 1] and defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [Doc. 88] are DENIED and DISMISSED as untimely.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled window includes a mix of personal-injury removals, prisoner civil-rights suits (many referred to Magistrate Judge James P.
- Mazzone), a pro se employment/APA suit against federal agencies, and a federal-agency Title VII enforcement action.
- The EEOC suit alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation against two restaurant-bar defendants proceeded through competing motions for judgment on the pleadings before resolving in a consent decree; the pro se suit against the Army and EEOC was dismissed for improper service and lack of jurisdiction after the plaintiff twice failed to obtain a default judgment.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, not for Judge Bailey: 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 | 300 | 10.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 9 | not reported |
| Closed before pretrial | 272 | 9.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 15 | 14.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 300 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 268 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 290 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 301 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 318 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 341 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 414 | 12.2 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 Bailey with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bailey, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bailey's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace