John Preston Bailey

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia district Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 20 signed orders read

How Judge Bailey decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On a timeliness argument for removal, the judge treated the statutory 30-day removal clock as effectively unwaivable by private agreement, rejecting the argument that a courtesy extension to answer implicitly extended it.

“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.”

Procedural preferences

On an unopposed portion of a habeas Report and Recommendation, the judge deferred fully to the magistrate judge's reasoning by adopting it without adding independent analysis, once satisfied the objections did not undermine it.

“Magistrate Judge Mazzone is correct... Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is ADOPTED and petitioner's objections are OVERRULED.”

In prisoner conditions-of-confinement suits, the judge enforces the PLRA's exhaustion requirement strictly: a plaintiff's own deposition testimony conceding he never appealed his grievances was enough to grant summary judgment for the defendants, even where some grievances went unanswered.

“Plaintiff's testimony demonstrates a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. ... Plaintiff testified that he did not appeal any of the grievances he filed.”

Cautions

Section 2241 habeas petitions that do not fit the narrow Fourth Circuit savings-clause test, or that are not the correct vehicle for the relief sought, are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction rather than reached on the merits -- petitioners relying on a change in case law should confirm it actually altered the underlying conduct's criminality before filing.

“[T]he crimes for which petitioner was convicted remain criminal offenses; accordingly, he cannot satisfy the second prong of Jones.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Phoenix Drilling, Inc. v. Mammoth Resource Partners, Inc.
2:09-cv-00097 · 2009-09-25
Motion for remand (plaintiff) Granted

“The Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is hereby GRANTED, and this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Upshur County.”

Blaniar v. Southwestern Energy Co.
5:20-cv-00169-JPB · 2022-03-01
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant JGB Enterprises, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 174] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”

Nevel v. Brown
5:23-cv-00285-JPB · 2023-11-13
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“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.”

Rosenthal v. Jezioro
2:08-cv-00081 · 2008-11-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Mey v. Got Warranty, Inc.
5:15-cv-00101 · 2016-06-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Marietta Area Healthcare, Inc. v. King
5:21-cv-00025 · 2022-06-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Todd A. Kruger's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 140] is hereby DENIED.”

McEvoy v. Diversified Energy Company PLC
5:22-cv-00171 · 2023-04-03
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 104] is DENIED.”

Berring-Billman v. John Doe #1
5:21-cv-00067 · 2022-12-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Blackwell v. Ray
5:24-cv-00003 · 2024-03-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Huskey v. Lovett
5:23-cv-00302 · 2024-02-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Sellers v. Anderson
2:18-cv-00001 · 2020-10-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Reese v. United States
5:18-cv-00006 · 2019-03-11
Motion to vacate 2255 (petitioner) Denied

“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.

Put Judge Bailey's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Bailey actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Bailey's own signed orders and cites them.