Patricia T. Morris

How Judge Morris rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Position
Magistrate judge
Appointed by
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (merit-selected U.S. Magistrate Judge; magistrates are appointed by the district's Article III judges under 28 U.S.C. 631, not the President)
Commissioned
April 24, 2014
Signed orders read
15

About Judge Morris

Patricia T. Morris has served as a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Michigan since April 2014. Based in Bay City, she succeeded Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder on the court’s northern division bench.

Judge Morris's practices and standing orders

Rules for cases before Judge Morris, 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.

Key rules

Motions

Additional briefing, including sur-replies, will NOT be permitted unless requested by the Court.

“Additional briefing, including sur-replies, will NOT be permitted unless requested by the Court.”

Discovery

This statement should be electronically filed at least 5 days prior to the hearing.

“This statement should be electronically filed at least 5 days prior to the hearing.”

Conferences

A short, concise statement of the issues is to be submitted by each side directly to chambers at least seven days prior to the settlement conference.

“A short, concise statement of the issues is to be submitted by each side directly to chambers at least seven days prior to the settlement conference.”

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

How Judge Morris decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Procedural preferences

In Bundy v. Commissioner of Social Security, she recommended denying the claimant's summary-judgment motion and affirming the Commissioner after finding the administrative law judge adequately addressed treating-physician opinions; the district judge adopted her recommendation over an objection.

“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. The findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED.”

Cautions

In Farmer v. Commissioner of Social Security, Morris recommended denying the claimant's summary judgment motion and granting the Commissioner's motion. District Judge Roberts adopted the recommendation after reviewing the claimant's objections.

“The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Morris’s analysis and ADOPTS the R&R. The Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.”

In one 2026 Social Security appeal, she recommended remand after the administrative law judge identified migraines as severe but gave them scant discussion in the written decision. The district judge adopted the recommendation.

“the ALJ barely discussed Plaintiff’s migraines in the written decision, despite finding”

Signed rulings

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

Farmer v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:18-cv-13023-VAR-PTM · 2019-09-17
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“On July 31, 2019, Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment... The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Morris’s analysis and ADOPTS the R&R.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.”

Bundy v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:20-cv-10254-DML-PTM · 2021-03-31
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Magistrate Judge Morris filed a report on January 29, 2021, recommending that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed... the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. The findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED.”

Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:21-cv-10267-DML-PTM · 2022-02-10
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the report issued on January 26, 2022 by Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court deny the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and affirm the Commissioner’s findings... the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED. The findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED.”

Cassaday v. Dow Chemical Co.
1:22-cv-11555-TLL-PTM · 2022-08-10

28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) pro se screening recommendation, resolving no party motion. Morris recommended sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's five federal-criminal-statute claims with prejudice (no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. 241/246/249/607/1512) and his Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claim without prejudice (failure to plead exhaustion, leaving no subject-matter jurisdiction). District Judge Thomas L. Ludington adopted the recommendation (August 10, 2022) over objections, and denied a motion to stay. The adoption order states: “Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris, who recommended that this Court sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s criminal claims with prejudice and sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s Sarbanes-Oxley Act claim without prejudice... Judge Morris’s R&R... is ADOPTED.” The dismissal was mixed: with prejudice for the criminal claims, without prejudice for the Sarbanes-Oxley claim.

Zlatkin v. Township of Butman
· 2024-05-07
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant Kreisher’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) be GRANTED”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff Sharon’s ‘CounterMotion’ for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49) be DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Cage v. Beard
· 2024-09-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 56) be DENIED.”

Richardson v. Falk
· 2024-09-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“defendant Nathan Falk’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”

Ewing v. Wayne County Sheriff
· 2024-07-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“I RECOMMEND that the Court grant the motion (ECF No. 189) and DISMISS this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute”

Nevills v. Okpa
· 2025-06-10
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“For these reasons, Nevills’ motion to compel (ECF No. 37) is DENIED.”

Barnes v. Obiakor
· 2025-11-10
Motions to compel (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Obiakor’s motion to compel discovery responses (ECF No. 21) are hereby deemed RESOLVED.”

Vink v. Natole
· 2023-04-20

Sua sponte R&R recommending dismissal of the pro se prisoner complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) after plaintiff failed to serve process; no motion adjudicated. Grounding quote: “IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 41.2.”

Thompson v. 54th Circuit Court
· 2024-09-18

Screening R&R recommending sua sponte dismissal of an IFP complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) as frivolous, the claims resting on rejected sovereign-citizen theories. Grounding quote: “IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Thompson’s complaint, sua sponte, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The reviewed matters combine Social Security referrals, criminal-duty proceedings, and pro se screening cases. This is a descriptive sample, not a complete caseload count.

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 months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years0
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 202600
Sep 202500
Mar 202500
Sep 202400
Mar 202400
Sep 202300
Mar 202300
Sep 202200
Mar 202200
Sep 202100
Mar 202100
Sep 202000

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 Eastern District of Michigan, not for Judge Morris: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed2,9268.3 months
Closed with no court action4102.9 months
Closed before pretrial1,2464.1 months
Closed during or after pretrial1,25215.3 months
Closed during trial1835.8 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20252,9268.3 months
Sep 20242,6157.9 months
Sep 20232,6168.5 months
Sep 20222,5419.2 months
Sep 20212,40510.2 months
Sep 20202,6779 months
Sep 20193,2378.6 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 Morris with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Morris, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Morris's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace