Frank W. Volk
How Judge Volk rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Volk
Frank William Volk is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Volk received a commission on October 17, 2019.
Judge Volk's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Volk'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 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.
“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.”
“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].”
“Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court GRANTS Gautier's Motion to Certify Class [Doc. 45] and CERTIFIES the class as moulded.”
“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.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 7], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES the matter.”
“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.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 10], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 2], and DISMISSES the matter.”
“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 9], DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1], and DISMISSES the matter.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Southern District of West Virginia, not for Judge Volk: 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 Volk with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Volk, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Volk's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace