🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Annemarie Carney Axon

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Appointed by Donald Trump (Republican) 25 signed orders read

How Judge Axon decides

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

What persuades

Gets the procedural posture right even when it cuts against the recommendation: corrected an R&R because FTCA time bars are non-jurisdictional, so the proper disposition was summary judgment, not a jurisdictional dismissal.

“the time limits contained in the Federal Tort Claims Act are not jurisdictional. ... the court modifies the recommendation ... the court WILL GRANT summary judgment in favor of the United States”

Procedural preferences

Strict on scheduling-order discipline: a motion to amend filed after the pleading deadline must satisfy Rule 16(b) 'good cause' (diligence), not just Rule 15; briefing only relation-back loses.

“Because Plaintiffs wholly fail to address Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard in their motion ... the court WILL DENY the motion for leave to amend.”

Holds pro se litigants to procedural rules: untimely objections to an R&R, filed without a motion for extension, are overruled (and were meritless anyway).

“Although the court construes filings by pro se litigants liberally, such litigants are still required to comply with procedural rules.”

Cautions

A party that ignores served discovery cannot invoke Rule 56(d) to stave off summary judgment — and inaccurate 'no discovery taken' affidavits will be checked against the record.

“Parties that 'decline[] to . . . proactively participate in the discovery process' are not entitled to Rule 56(d) relief.”

Signed rulings

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

Bolong v. Lassiter
1:22-cv-00990-ACA-GMB · 2025-03-11
Motion to dismiss or summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the court WILL GRANT IN PART and WILL DENY IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. ... WILL DISMISS all claims except the Eighth Amendment claim WITH PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court WILL DENY the motion to dismiss Mr. Bolong's Eighth Amendment claim against Mr. Ward but WILL GRANT the motion for summary judgment on that claim ... because Bivens does not provide a remedy”

Bynum v. EBSCO Information Services, Inc.
2:24-cv-01234-ACA · 2025-07-08
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the court WILL GRANT EBSCO Information Services's motion for summary judgment and WILL ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT in its favor. (Doc. 66).”

Motion for rule 56d relief (plaintiff) Denied

“the court WILL DENY Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 56(d) relief. (Doc. 69).”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“the court WILL DENY the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 68).”

Brunson v. Green
5:24-cv-00541-ACA-NAD · 2025-07-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“The court WILL DENY the motion for summary judgment with respect to Mr. Brunson's excessive force claim against Officer Green in his individual capacity. The court WILL GRANT the motion for summary judgment and WILL ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT in favor of Officer Green and Lt. Howell on all other claims brought against them in their individual capacities.”

Epps v. Tuscaloosa County Commission
7:25-cv-00242-ACA · 2025-07-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The court WILL GRANT the Commission's motion to dismiss and WILL DISMISS Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six against it WITH PREJUDICE.”

Motion for attorney fees (defendant) Denied

“the court declines to exercise its discretion to award fees in this case and WILL DENY the Commission's request.”

Mays v. Johnson
1:23-cv-00109-ACA-NAD · 2025-07-17

Section 1915A screening dismissal (adopting recommendation over objections): the court WILL DISMISS this action, with prejudice as to Mr. Mays' Bivens claims, and without prejudice as to any potential FTCA claim.

Savoj v. Blinken
2:24-cv-01049-ACA · 2025-08-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The court WILL GRANT Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.”

Helcim USA, Inc. v. MJ's Discount Warehouse, Inc.
2:24-cv-01643-ACA · 2025-09-12
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“the court GRANTS Plaintiff Helcim USA, Inc.'s motion for default judgment on its claims for fraud, breach of contract, and indemnification and WILL ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Defendants Jason Phillip Goins and MJ's Discount Warehouse, Inc., d/b/a MJ's Wholesale Division, on those claims. (Doc. 42). The court DENIES Helcim's motion on its claim for civil conspiracy.”

Wilson v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
2:23-cv-00643-ACA · 2025-09-30
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted in part

“The court WILL GRANT Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and WILL ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS in favor of Defendants and against the Wilsons' minor son with respect to Counts One through Three, Nine, and Ten. (Doc. 82). The court WILL DENY Defendants' motion as to Counts Four through Eight.”

Serra Nissan Oldsmobile, Inc. v. ID Auto Sales, Inc.
2:24-cv-01716-ACA · 2025-10-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The court WILL DENY the motion to dismiss the claims against Mr. Burt for lack of standing and WILL GRANT the motion to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim. The court WILL DISMISS Counts One, Two, and Three against Mr. Burt WITH PREJUDICE.”

DeRomano v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department
2:25-cv-01380-ACA-JHE · 2025-12-03

Rule 41(b) failure-to-prosecute dismissal adopting an unobjected recommendation after plaintiff failed to provide a current address: the court WILL DISMISS this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

Hudson v. Hut
7:24-cv-00620-ACA-HNJ · 2025-12-03

Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) screening dismissal for failure to state a claim, adopting an unobjected recommendation and sua sponte dismissing additional claims: the court WILL DISMISS this action WITH PREJUDICE.

Antonio-Hernandez v. Calloway
1:25-cv-00759-ACA-SGC · 2025-12-04
Petition for writ of habeas corpus (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Accordingly, the court DENIES Mr. Hernandez's petition.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 355 days (N = 8).

The reviewed cases illustrate a mix of employment, civil-rights, prisoner, insurance, defamation, capital-habeas, and consent Social Security matters. They do not represent the full docket, and broader case-ending data are unavailable for the later part of the period.

Put Judge Axon's record to work

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

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