Frank W. Volk

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia district Appointed by Donald Trump (Republican) 24 signed orders read

How Judge Volk decides

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

What persuades

On a WARN Act single-employer question, the judge looked past a defendant's disclaimer of any 'legal relationship' to the other companies and instead credited overlapping officers, directors, and on-site supervisory control as the decisive evidence.

“Given the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes the Defendants constitute a single employer for WARN Act purposes.”

Procedural preferences

The judge treats an unobjected-to magistrate recommendation as final without independent re-examination, consistent with circuit precedent that objections are required to trigger de novo review.

“The Court need not review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed.”

Signed rulings

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

Kessler v. Lewis
5:22-cv-00551 · 2024-04-04
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 9], DENIES Mr. Kessler's Applications to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs [ECF 1 and 6], DISMISSES Mr. Kessler's Complaints [ECF 2 and 7], and DISMISSES the matter.”

Gautier v. Tams Management, Inc.
5:20-cv-00165 · 2021-09-28
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Genuine issues of material fact are extant in this litigation. As such, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 20] and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply [Doc. 49].”

Gautier v. Tams Management, Inc.
5:20-cv-00165 · 2021-09-27
Motion to certify class (plaintiff) Granted

“Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court GRANTS Gautier's Motion to Certify Class [Doc. 45] and CERTIFIES the class as moulded.”

Barfield v. Young
5:18-cv-00323 · 2019-12-12
Habeas petition (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 13], DENIES the Petitioner’s Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody [Doc. 1], and ORDERS the matter stricken.”

Patterson v. Young
5:18-cv-00897 · 2021-05-19
Habeas petition (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 7], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES the matter.”

Taylor v. Young
5:18-cv-01071 · 2020-05-14
Habeas petition (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 14], GRANTS the Respondent’s request for dismissal [Doc. 9], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES the matter.”

Hill v. Young
5:17-cv-03391 · 2020-08-27
Habeas petition (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 10], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 2], and DISMISSES the matter.”

Fannon v. Young
5:17-cv-04036 · 2020-06-23
Habeas petition (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES the matter.”

Estate of Lora Mae Burns v. Cohen
5:18-cv-00888 · 2020-03-11
Motion in limine (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, the Estate’s motion in limine [Doc. 68] is DENIED in part, inasmuch as it seeks a determination that the 2015 version of West Virginia Code § 55-7B-9(b) applies.”

Estate of Lora Mae Burns v. Cohen
5:18-cv-00888 · 2020-06-17
Motion in limine (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, Dr. Cohen’s motion in limine to exclude certain medical expenses [Doc. 65] is GRANTED and the Estate’s motion in limine to preclude certain expert testimony [Doc. 68] is DENIED.”

Motion to exclude expert testimony (plaintiff) Denied
Fanary v. Equifax Information Services
5:20-cv-00169 · 2020-08-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Mr. Fanary’s request for leave to amend paragraph 70 of the complaint [Doc. 21] and DENIES Educap’s Partial Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 19] without prejudice.”

Frye v. Saul
5:20-cv-00229 · 2021-02-01
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 21], DENIES Plaintiff’s request for remand [Doc. 19], GRANTS the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision below [Doc. 20], AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES the matter.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled caseload spans FLSA and WARN Act wage/employment suits, prisoner Section 1983 and habeas actions, employment-discrimination removals, insurance and contract diversity cases, and federal criminal matters. Several employment-discrimination cases against the same defendant resolved by joint stipulation of dismissal after discovery closed rather than by a ruling on a dispositive motion, and one fraud case remained tied up in a stay and later consolidation without a ruling document becoming available in the record reviewed.

Put Judge Volk's record to work

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

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