Laura K. McNally
How Judge McNally rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McNally
Laura K. McNally began serving as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois in November 2024. She sits in Chicago and handles consent civil cases, referred civil matters, and rotating criminal duties.
Judge McNally's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge McNally, 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.
- Case Procedures ↗
- Standing Order for Settlement Conferences. ↗
- Standing Order for Joint Initial Status Reports ↗
Key rules
Motions
Include a word-count certificate with each brief; typewritten or handwritten briefs are limited to 20 pages.
“Each brief shall include a word-count certification Typewritten and handwritten briefs may not exceed 20 pages.”
Discovery
Deliver summary judgment materials to chambers within 24 hours after filing.
“A courtesy copy of the memorandum of law, depositions and other materials relied upon in support of the motion (as required by Local Rule 56.1(a)(1)-(3)) or in opposition to the motion (as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)-(3)) must be delivered to chambers within 24 hours of when it is filed on the CM/ECF system.”
Trial
Email the proposed pretrial order in Word and deliver two courtesy copies to chambers.
“The Proposed Pretrial Order must be emailed to [email protected] in Word format, with two courtesy copies delivered to chambers and all counsel included as cc: recipients.”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge McNally decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A claimant obtained remand by identifying a specific gap in the required medical-opinion analysis: the administrative decision discussed consistency with other evidence but did not examine the treating physician's own supporting explanations and contrary treatment notes. The ruling treated that omission as consequential because the opinion, if credited, supported materially greater mental limitations.
“The ALJ’s failure to address the supportability of Dr. Chinn’s opinion resulted in an unlawful cherry-picking of the evidence.”
Procedural preferences
In Roche v. Bisignano, she allowed an extension but warned the plaintiff that another would require unforeseeable good cause and that other work obligations would not meet that standard.
“The Court will not grant Plaintiff any further extensions absent unforeseeable good cause, and the obligations of other work will not be seen as unforeseeable good cause.”
Cautions
In Sokolowski v. Bisignano, she rejected the plaintiff's arguments about the evaluation of mental impairments because they asked the court to reweigh the evidence.
“All of Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the evaluation of his mental impairments impermissibly ask the Court to reweigh evidence.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons explained above, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 16) and denies Defendant’s brief in support of his summary judgment motion. (Dkt. 19.)”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request seeking to reverse or remand the ALJ’s decision (Dkt. 16) and grants Defendant’s motion seeking to affirm. (Dkt. 17.)”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 16) and denies Plaintiff’s request for remand (Dkt. 15.)”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for remand (Dkt. 15) and denies Defendant’s response in opposition. (Dkt. 18.)”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for remand (Dkt. 16) and denies Defendant’s response in opposition. (Dkt. 17.)”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeking to reverse and remand the ALJ’s decision (Dkt. 15) and denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 19).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeking to reverse and remand the ALJ’s decision (Dkt. 17) and grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 20).”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment brief (Dkt. 10) and grants Defendant’s motion. (Dkt. 13.)”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed civil calendar is dominated by consent Social Security appeals, with a smaller set of consent personal-injury and other general civil matters. Her later exact-name results are primarily rotating criminal-duty and search-warrant proceedings rather than a general merits calendar.
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 | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 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 Northern District of Illinois, not for Judge McNally: 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 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 4,300 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,558 | 5.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 305 | 12.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 42 | 49.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,700 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 7,093 | 6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,841 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,703 | 15.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,046 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,134 | 7.4 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 McNally with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McNally, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McNally's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace