Thomas S. Kleeh
How Judge Kleeh rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kleeh
Thomas Shawn Kleeh is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Kleeh received a commission on November 5, 2018.
Judge Kleeh's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Kleeh'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 Kleeh decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In reviewing a labor-arbitration award, Kleeh treated the court's role as extremely narrow: once the arbitrator arguably construed the wage agreement and arbitral precedent within the scope of his authority, the court would not revisit whether the interpretation was correct or whether it would have reached a different result.
“Arbitrator Smalley did his job, and the Court will refrain from discerning whether he did it correctly or whether the Court would have done it differently.”
On a discrimination claim, the judge treated the absence of any allegation that the employer knew about protected FMLA activity as fatal on its own, independent of whether the underlying harm was plausible.
“There are no allegations that Defendants knew that Plaintiff had invoked a right under the FMLA. In fact, there are no allegations that Plaintiff ever went on leave.”
On a personal-jurisdiction challenge, the judge focused narrowly on the mechanics of service rather than the defendant's underlying contacts with the forum, and declined to reach the case's other dismissal grounds once service alone was dispositive.
“This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Ms. Allen because Defendant was not served in compliance with the service of process procedures set forth in West Virginia's long-arm statute.”
In a defamation and interference dispute, the judge granted summary judgment where the plaintiff did not create a factual dispute over qualified privilege or actual malice for an employee report.
“Because Plaintiff fails to create a dispute of fact as to the qualified privilege or actual malice, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to the claims of defamation, defamation”
Procedural preferences
In a case with no objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, he reviewed for clear error, found none, and adopted the recommendation.
“Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.”
When arbitration was compelled and a party requested a stay, the judge kept the action pending rather than dismissing it.
“the litigation must be stayed rather than dismissed because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction through diversity and the Plaintiff has requested a stay.”
The judge certified an unresolved state debt-collection question before deciding the pending summary judgment, class certification, and arbitration motions.
“Given that the substantive law governing this case is unclear, certification of these questions”
Cautions
In a removed action, the judge enforced a defendant’s thirty-day consent deadline using the date that defendant actually received service. Consent filed three days late made removal procedurally defective and led to remand.
“was untimely, removal was therefore procedurally defective, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.”
In a warranty case, the judge denied dismissal because the defense depended on evidence outside the complaint; those arguments could be revisited after discovery.
“These arguments are premature. The Court cannot and will not resolve the relative merits of claims under Rule 12(b)(6).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED [ECF No. 8];”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 17]. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Remand is GRANTED [ECF No. 10] and the claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 12]. Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED [ECF No. 5]... This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the Court's active docket.”
“DENIES Callahan's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 23]; GRANTS the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 24]; and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this civil action.”
“For the reasons discussed, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED in its entirety [ECF No. 72].”
“For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 117] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Counts Two and Three of Plaintiff's Complaint for False Arrest and Unlawful Search and Seizure are DISMISSED because the alleged unlawful conduct is duplicative and included within Count Two. Plaintiff's claims in Counts One through Four are further DISMISSED to the extent the claims are brought under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.”
“Accordingly, the R&R is REJECTED [ECF No. 40], and the motion to suppress is DENIED [ECF No. 24].”
“For the reasons discussed above, the R&R is REJECTED [ECF No. 40], and Defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED [ECF No. 26].”
“Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the R&R [ECF No. 25] and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1), GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for default judgment [ECF No. 10].”
“Mr. Petty's opinions are not so unreliable as to warrant exclusion of his testimony and the motion to exclude is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled civil caseload spans employment-discrimination removals, contract and coal-royalty disputes, and prisoner civil-rights suits, with Magistrate Judge Michael J.
- Aloi handling many referred prisoner and habeas matters.
- One sampled removal case ended in a voluntary stipulated dismissal with prejudice after the parties reached agreement following a continued trial setting; a second, longer-running contract dispute produced a grounded motion-to-amend ruling before proceeding toward further litigation.
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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 18 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 8 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 17 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 17 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 9 | 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 Kleeh: 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 Kleeh with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kleeh, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kleeh's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace