David A. Faber
How Judge Faber rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Faber
David A. Faber is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Faber received a commission on November 25, 1991. Judge Faber assumed senior status on December 31, 2008.
Judge Faber's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Faber'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 Faber decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Matthews v. Warden, Faber declined to adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss a habeas petition with prejudice. He instead dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
“The court declines to adopt the PF&R's recommendation to dismiss this action with prejudice and instead dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.”
In Repass v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., Faber denied the insured's summary-judgment motion and granted the insurer's cross-motion on an occupational disability claim. Although the insured could not perform nine duties, his own testimony showed he could perform most of the principal duties of his occupation.
“despite his inability to perform the aforementioned nine duties, plaintiff was still able to perform most of the principal duties of his occupation.”
In Crouch v. Siemens Short-Term Disability Plan, Faber found that the plan administrator abused its discretion by failing to consider a Social Security disability award submitted during the plan appeal. He remanded the benefits claim for reconsideration.
“These failures constitute an abuse of discretion necessitating reconsideration of plaintiffs claim by the plan administrator.”
Procedural preferences
In Stevenson v. Clark, Faber denied the plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply in a civil-rights case. He adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the complaint.
“denying plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply; adopting the Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge”
In Thomas v. Brooks Run Mining Co., Faber remanded a removed wrongful-death suit after finding that the parties were not completely diverse. Because he lacked jurisdiction, he did not reach the defendants’ pending dismissal motion.
“Removal jurisdiction is strictly construed, and, if federal jurisdiction is in doubt, remand is necessary.”
Cautions
In Bankston v. Warden, he adopted an unopposed magistrate recommendation, dismissed a Section 2241 habeas petition, and denied a certificate of appealability after finding that the governing standard was not met.
“The court concludes that the governing standard is not satisfied in this instance. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court FINDS that the requested relief is no longer possible. Accordingly, Movant's 37 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff's request for remand is DENIED; Defendant's request to affirm the Commissioner's Decision is GRANTED; The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; This action is DISMISSED.”
“Granting plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent it requests remand of defendant's decision; denying defendant's request to affirm her decision; reversing and remanding defendant's decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g).”
“Denying plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply; adopting the Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; dismissing plaintiff's Complaint; and directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket.”
“Granting in part and denying in part the MOTION by McDowell County Commission to Dismiss. Defendant's motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Count II and DENIED as to Count I.”
“Granting in part and denying in part the MOTION by McDowell County Commission to Dismiss. Defendant's motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of Count II and DENIED as to Count I.”
“Adopting Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying the MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255); dismissing this action and directing the Clerk to remove this case from the active docket; the court denies a certificate of appealability.”
“Adopting the Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying the MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255); directing that this action is dismissed.”
“Adopting the Proposed Findings and Recommendations; the 2255 motion is denied; this action is dismissed and the clerk is directed to remove this case from the court's active docket. The court denies a certificate of appealability.”
“Granting the Motion by Charles Gore to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment; denying the Petition by Brian Merchant for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254); dismissing this action with prejudice; and directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket; additionally, denying a certificate of appealability.”
“Accordingly, the court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's petition/motion for emergency CARES Act home confinement pursuant to U.S.C. § 2241 and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket.”
“Accordingly, the court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to U.S.C. § 2241 and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled caseload is dominated by federal prisoner habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C.
- Section 2241 and post-conviction motions to vacate sentence under Section 2255, most referred first to a magistrate judge for a recommendation.
- It also includes Social Security disability appeals, prisoner civil-rights suits against county jails, general civil and insurance disputes, and a large-scale opioid public-nuisance case that was tried to judgment in 2022.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 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 Southern District of West Virginia, not for Judge Faber: 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 | 470 | 10 months |
| Closed with no court action | 16 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 441 | 10.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 19.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 470 | 10 months |
| Sep 2024 | 469 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 473 | 11.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 471 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 939 | 14.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 3,013 | 62.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 41,342 | 53.9 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 Faber with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Faber, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Faber's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace