Daniel C. Irick
How Judge Irick rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Irick
Daniel C. Irick has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Orlando Division of the Middle District of Florida since October 2016. He earned both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Florida and handles referred matters and consent civil cases.
Judge Irick's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Irick, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
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 10, 2026).
How Judge Irick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A residual-functional-capacity finding may rest on the record as a whole even when the administrative law judge finds individual medical opinions unpersuasive. Judge Irick rejected the claim that the finding had to track a particular physician’s opinion.
“an ALJ cannot substitute his judgment for that of the medical sources, but there is no requirement that an RFC must be based on a physician's opinion. ... it is the ALJ's responsibility to determine the ultimate issue of the Claimant's RFC, and not the physicians.”
Preservation / record development: a challenge to the ALJ's persuasiveness findings that is raised only perfunctorily, without supporting argument or authority, is deemed waived (McClain of Ga.); and the ALJ need not order a consultative exam, a testifying medical advisor, or interrogatories unless the claimant shows an evidentiary gap producing unfairness or 'clear prejudice' (Henry, Ellison).
“Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, without supporting arguments and citation to authorities, are generally deemed to be waived.”
Medical-opinion analysis must address both supportability and consistency. Farmer and McKiver show that discussing a source's own records can satisfy supportability but does not replace an explanation of how the opinion compares with the rest of the medical evidence; later litigation arguments cannot supply an analysis the ALJ omitted.
“The ALJ is required to discuss how a medical source’s opinion is consistent with other evidence within the record.”
Fee applicants should exercise billing judgment before filing. In Wilson, Irick cut excessive administrative-record review and excluded clerical work, awarding 41.8 hours rather than the larger request.
“If fee applicants do not exercise billing judgment, courts are obligated to do it for them”
A medical-opinion analysis is read as a whole rather than tested for formulaic wording or repeated pinpoint citations. In Keene, Irick found the administrative law judge's explanation reviewable because the surrounding discussion identified the relevant supportability and consistency evidence.
“The ALJ was not required to use any ‘magic words’ nor was she required to cite to specific portions of the record in discussing her determination.”
In a referred arbitration motion, Irick denied relief without prejudice when the movant had not adequately addressed a delegation provision and the opposing party's challenge. He permitted a fully briefed renewed motion and did not decide arbitrability on the merits.
“Defendant has failed to sufficiently address the delegation provision,”
Procedural preferences
In Colon, Irick denied early discovery because the plaintiff offered only generalized preservation concerns and did not show good cause to depart from the usual discovery schedule.
“Plaintiff’s generalized and unsupported concerns about evidence preservation are insufficient.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the stated reasons, it is ORDERED that: 1. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and 2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the Commissioner and close the case.”
“The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED”
“The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED”
“The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)”
“The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) is GRANTED in part to the extent that Plaintiff’s fraud claim (Count IV) is hereby DISMISSED. The remainder of the Motion (Doc. 31) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 34) is GRANTED in part to the extent that Plaintiff is awarded 41.8 hours for this appeal representing a total fee award of $8,820.16”
“1. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and 2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for the Commissioner and close the case.”
“the Motion (Doc. 19) is DENIED without prejudice for a failure to comply with Local”
“Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 34) is GRANTED in part”
“Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 35) is GRANTED in part”
“GRANTED in part to the extent that on or before October 12, 2026, Plaintiff”
“the Motion (Doc. 56) is DENIED without prejudice;”
“the Motion (Doc. 20) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part such that:”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled civil docket is dominated by Social Security appeals.
- Those cases are initially assigned to a district judge with Judge Irick handling referred matters, then reassigned to him as the final judge when the parties consent under 28 U.S.C. section 636(c).
- The sample contains thirty consent Social Security dispositions plus a consent dismissal and fee ruling; no authoritative case-disposition baseline was available for the period.
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 | 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 United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Irick: 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 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 49 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,492 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 319 | 14.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,115 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,777 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,781 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,749 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,392 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 6,830 | 5.7 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 Irick with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Irick, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Irick's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace