M. David Weisman
How Judge Weisman rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Weisman
M. David Weisman was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois in June 2016. He earned his law degree from the University of Texas School of Law and previously served as an FBI special agent. He later worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the district and practiced federal litigation in private firms.
Judge Weisman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Weisman, 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 ↗
- Judge Weisman's Final Pretrial Order ↗
Key rules
Motions
In Social Security cases, file the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion within 60 days after the answer and record are filed.
“Within sixty (60) days after the filing of the answer to the complaint and the administrative record, the plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support.”
Motions
File motions at least three business days before the hearing.
“All motions must be filed no later than three business days before the day the motion is to be heard (e.g., for a motion to be heard on Thursday, it must be filed no later than Monday of that week).”
Motions
Securely bind and index the courtesy appendix with each document separately tabbed.
“The courtesy copy of the appendix must be securely bound, must separately tab each document, and must contain an index identifying what document is contained under each tab.”
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 Weisman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bahaa H.’s benefits appeal, Weisman remanded because the administrative law judge mischaracterized a physician’s treatment remarks and inadequately assessed a nurse practitioner’s opinion about pain-related limits on concentration. He found that the decision omitted contrary treatment notes and did not explain why recommendations for greater activity undermined that opinion.
“In short, the ALJ’s assessment of Ms. Kos’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence.”
In Roy v. Power Dry Chicago Inc., he declined to require a complete summary-judgment prima facie case at the pleading stage, let the race-discrimination claim proceed, and dismissed the retaliation claim because the plaintiff had not alleged that he opposed discrimination.
“the elements CWFR cites are those for making a prima facie case of discrimination to defeat a summary judgment motion, not those required to survive a motion to dismiss. ... plaintiff does not allege that he complained in any way to anyone about discrimination.”
In a 2026 benefits appeal, the court rejected a symptom-evaluation challenge where the administrative law judge had considered treatment, medication effects, daily activities, and the claimant’s own descriptions. The opinion focused on what the administrative decision actually addressed.
“the ALJ noted not only Plaintiff’s treatment but also the effect of his medication, his daily activities, the intensity and the current status of his symptoms.”
In the Friel benefits appeal, he remanded when the administrative law judge did not discuss intensive outpatient treatment near the claimant’s date last insured in assessing functional capacity.
“Because the ALJ failed to address the evidence that is likely most reflective of plaintiff’s condition at his DLI, this case must be remanded.”
Procedural preferences
In USA Satellite & Cable, Inc. v. MacNaughton, he recommended denying enforcement of a proposed oral settlement because the parties had not agreed on the scope of the release, a material term.
“the parties did not enter into an enforceable oral settlement agreement because they did not reach a meeting of the minds on all material terms. First, the parties had no agreement as to the scope of the release -- a provision that Plaintiff's counsel acknowledges is material.”
Cautions
In Mulcahy v. Cook County, he granted reconsideration in part after concluding that unpaid suspension days were discrete acts rather than ongoing compensation discrimination; he left the separate retaliation ruling in place.
“Motions for reconsideration are not an opportunity for the movant 'to take a second bite at the apple or raise new arguments that it did not make in the first instance.' ... Upon reconsideration, the Court agrees that plaintiff's unpaid suspension days were discrete acts of alleged discrimination.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court grants plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [17], denies SSA's motion for summary judgment [25], reverses the SSA's decision and remands this case for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“the Court grants plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [17], denies SSA's motion for summary judgment [25], reverses the SSA's decision and remands this case.”
“the Court recommends that the SSA's motion for summary judgment [20] be denied and the SSA's decision be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.”
“the Court grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion for reconsideration [110]. The motion is granted with respect to Count II, and the Court enters judgment in defendants' favor on that count. The motion is denied with respect to Count III, which remains pending.”
“the Court grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion to dismiss [17]. The Court: (1) dismisses with prejudice the Title VII claims plaintiff asserts against Kelly and Montalbano in Count I; (2) dismisses without prejudice the Title VII claim plaintiff asserts against CWFR in Count II as duplicative of the claim in Count I; and (3) dismisses without prejudice and with leave to amend the Count III 1981 retaliation claim. The Title VII claim plaintiff asserts against CWFR in Count I stands.”
“the Court recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement agreement [184].”
“the Court reverses the Commissioner's decision, grants plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [20], denies the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [24], and pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), remands this case for further proceedings consistent with this Order.”
“the Court reverses the Commissioner's decision, grants plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [20], denies the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [24].”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff's motion to compel. Defendant is ordered to produce information and documents in accordance with this order by March 1, 2023.”
“the motion is denied, without prejudice, in part and granted in part. The motion is denied, without prejudice as to the emails. The motion is granted with respect to the internal memo. The CCSAO shall forthwith produce the memorandum it is currently withholding based on its claim of privilege.”
“the Court grants in part defendants' motion to dismiss [79] and dismisses without prejudice the denial-of-medical-care claims he asserts against the County and defendant Doscher. Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to file an amended complaint that cures the defects identified herein, if he can do so and comply with Rule 11. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by that date, these claims will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion for reconsideration [103].”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies defendants' motion to dismiss [103].”
“the Court grants E&I's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction [78]. The complaint against Defendant E&I is dismissed without prejudice.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 Northern District of Illinois, not for Judge Weisman: 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 Weisman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Weisman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Weisman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace