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

Corey L. Maze

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Appointed by Donald Trump (Republican) 22 signed orders read

Signed rulings

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

Aim 4 Pie LLC v. School Health Corporation
4:24-cv-01376-CLM · 2025-07-02
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the court GRANTS School Health's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 11). The court's dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE; meaning that the court will allow Aim 4 Pie one chance to replead its complaint to address the pleading deficiencies highlighted above.”

Miles v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
4:19-cv-00756-CLM · 2020-09-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the court will deny Wal Mart's motion for summary judgment as to Count 1 and dismiss as moot Wal Mart's motion as to Counts 2 and 3 (because the court grants Miles's motion to voluntarily dismiss those counts).”

Tahir v. Pacheco
4:18-cv-00354-CLM · 2020-03-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Norfolk Southern's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 41) is GRANTED and Counts II, III, and IV are DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Shirey v. Warden Garrett
7:22-cv-00646-CLM-JHE · 2022-12-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the court will grant the respondent's motion for summary dismissal and deny Shirey's petition.”

Judy A. Finley v. Ingles Markets, Inc.
4:23-cv-00714-CLM · 2024-02-08
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“For these reasons, the court DENIES Finley's motion to remand. (Doc. 4).”

Benjamin Russell v. Leidos Inc., et al.
1:23-cv-01488-CLM · 2024-07-30
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“the court GRANTS Russell's Motion to Remand, (doc. 9), and thus DENIES AS MOOT Landingham's Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 7).”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural
Donna King v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company, et al.
4:20-cv-01201-CLM · 2021-05-07
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“King's motion to remand is due to be GRANTED.”

Guy Leonard v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Lienholder d/b/a GM Financial Company, et al.
1:20-cv-01395-CLM · 2021-10-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Because Leonard failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted, the court will DISMISS this case with prejudice.”

Motion for sanctions (defendant) Denied

“the court does not find that Leonard filed his claims against Wells Fargo in bad faith... So the court will deny Wells Fargo's motion for sanctions.”

Kathy Rakestraw Vasser v. Tezi Express, LLC, Jasmin Bakic, Max Trucking, LLC, Max Trucking Logistics, Inc., and 360 Logistics, LLC
4:19-cv-01823-CLM · 2022-01-03
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“So the Court denies Vasser's motion for partial summary judgment.”

Motion to exclude (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court denies the motion without prejudice and invites Vasser to refile her motion at a later date, under the Court's forthcoming scheduling order.”

John Jeremy Adams v. United States of America
6:22-cv-08013-CLM (6:19-cr-219-CLM-JHE) · 2025-07-29
Motion 2255 (petitioner) Denied

“The court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the claims raised in Adams' original § 2255 motion (doc. 1) and will enter a separate order directing the Clerk of Court to close this case.”

Anthony Lamon Frazier v. United States of America
1:23-cv-08010-CLM (1:20-cr-300-CLM-GMB) · 2026-04-27
Motion 2255 (petitioner) Granted in part

“the court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Frazier's claims related to (1) the search of his work truck, (2) the failure to obtain a voice analysis, (3) the failure to call character witnesses, (4) counsel's closing argument, and (5) the lack of evidence about the confidential informant's pending charges. The court SETS an evidentiary hearing on Frazier's claims that Anthony provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain Frazier's work and cell phone records or protect Frazier's right to testify.”

Dwayne K. Sybbliss v. Warden, Etowah County Detention Center
4:21-cv-00266-CLM-GMB · 2021-05-06
Habeas petition (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. Accordingly, this action is due to be dismissed as duplicative.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 183 days (N = 15).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 120 days (N = 2).

Maze's reviewed docket includes employment and pay disputes, consumer-credit litigation, prisoner and habeas matters, insurance cases, civil-rights claims, sanctions questions, and contested dispositive motions in both counseled and self-represented cases.

Put Judge Maze's record to work

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

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