Robert E. Wier
How Judge Wier rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wier
Robert Earl Wier is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Wier received a commission on June 12, 2018.
Judge Wier's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wier, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Trial
Submit audio trial exhibits to Judge Wier only in WAV, MP3, or AVI format.
“The Court will accept only audio files that are in an uncompressed Waveform audio format (.wav), a Motion Pictures Expert Group format (.mp3), or an Audio-Video Interleave format (.avi).”
Trial
Submit video trial exhibits to Judge Wier only in AVI, MP4, or WMV format.
“The Court will accept only video files that are in an Audio-Video Interleave format (.avi), a Motion Pictures Expert Group format (.mp4), or Windows Media Video file format (.wmv).”
Trial
When ordered, upload exhibits through Judge Wier’s trial-exhibit portal instead of delivering physical copies.
“When directed by an order, instead of a physical copy, counsel shall provide an electronic copy of exhibits to the Court via the Court’s trial exhibit upload portal.”
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 9, 2026).
- General Order 25-7 - Motions Under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) ↗
- General Order 23-08 - Plea Agreements and Supplements in Criminal Cases ↗
- General Order 22-15 - Standing Procedures for Social Security Actions ↗
- Joint General Order 21-1 - Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures ↗
- General Order 21-1 - Procedures for Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- General Order 14-11 - Possession and Use of Electronic Devices by Bar ↗
How Judge Wier decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Griss v. United States, Wier found the FTCA suit premature because Griss filed it before a final agency denial. The agency's denial while the case was pending did not cure that defect.
“And the fact that the agency eventually denied Griss’s administrative tort claim during the pendency of this action does not justify a different result.”
In Robinette v. Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Wier found the pension committee's benefits decision arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence because its medical reviews did not fit the full record. He awarded benefits on the objective medical evidence instead of remanding.
“The only conclusion the Court can reach based on this record is that the Committee made an arbitrary benefits decision, one not supported by substantial evidence.”
Procedural preferences
In Blue Grass Community Foundation v. Salyer, Wier found the defendants' request to dismiss the state-law claims inadequate: they cited no supporting authority and did not address the claims' elements.
“Defendants’ basis for dismissing the state law claims is clearly inadequate to obtain the relief sought; Defendants do not cite any legal authority as grounds for dismissal, nor do they identify the relevant elements of the claims that BGCF failed to adequately plead.”
In one Social Security appeal, he rejected a separate summary-judgment framing because review was confined to the administrative record.
“Rule 56 concepts have no place”
In Kentucky Heartwood, Wier deferred the remaining agency-review summary judgment issues and requested a limited supplemental record before deciding them. After briefing on that material, he denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted the agency’s motion.
“the Court deferred ruling on summary judgment as to those claims and remanded the matter to the United States Forest Service”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court DENIES DE 25, Defendants' dispositive motion, without prejudice to their right to reassert their arguments on a more developed, post-discovery record.”
“The Court DENIES DE 64, Heartwood's motion for preliminary injunction.”
“The Court DENIES DE 62, Heartwood's motion to supplement the record with documents and extra-record discovery.”
“The Court DENIES DE 67, Heartwood's motion for relief under Rule 56(d).”
“the Court GRANTS DE 86, Weaver's motion for summary judgment. The Court will enter a corresponding judgment.”
“The remainder of the Complaint (DE 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
“The Court GRANTS Eclipse's motion for summary judgment on Oehler's age discrimination claim and DENIES its motion on Oehler's wrongful termination and retaliation claims.”
“The Court DENIES DE 13, Peters's motion for summary judgment, and AFFIRMS the Agency decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“The Court rejects the Rule 65 showing and DENIES DE 8.”
“The Court GRANTS the Government's motion to dismiss charged Violation #1 and accordingly DISMISSES Violation #1.”
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Eastern District of Kentucky, not for Judge Wier: 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 | 725 | 8.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 107 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 602 | 8.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 6 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 37.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 725 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 653 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 935 | 14 months |
| Sep 2022 | 810 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 811 | 11 months |
| Sep 2020 | 804 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,098 | 12 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 Wier with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wier, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wier's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace