Elizabeth Cowan Wright
How Judge Wright rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wright
Elizabeth Cowan Wright became a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota in September 2018. She serves on the same federal court as District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.
Judge Wright's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wright, 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.
- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright's Practice Pointers ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - General - PDF ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - General - DOCX ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - Patent - PDF ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - Patent - DOCX ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - ERISA - PDF ↗
- 26(f) Report Template - ERISA - DOCX ↗
Key rules
Filing
Email the Rule 26(f) report to chambers in both Word and PDF when filed.
“Please email courtesy copies of the Rule 26(f) Report in both Word and PDF format to Chambers when the Report is filed.”
Filing
Provide two paper courtesy copies of submissions to chambers.
“Please also provide two paper courtesy copies of submissions to Chambers, with appropriate tabs if the submissions are voluminous.”
Motions
Email chambers for a hearing date even if the parties agree to a decision on the papers.
“Even if there is agreement that a motion can be submitted on the papers without oral argument, the movant must email Chambers as described above to obtain a hearing date.”
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).
- Amended Administrative Order: Procedures for Storage and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- General Order No. 1: Filing Sealed Documents with Highly Sensitive Information ↗
- General Order No. 2: Removing Sealed Documents with Highly Sensitive Information from CM/ECF ↗
- Administrative Order: Encryption of Electronic Materials and Cloud Storage Links ↗
How Judge Wright decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Priebnow, she recommended denying severance because the defendant's asserted prejudice from a joint trial was speculative; the district judge adopted that recommendation after de novo review.
“Defendant's motion to sever merely speculates that there will be irreconcilable defenses between the co-defendants ... he only offered 'boilerplate statements of potential prejudice' and 'conclusory statements.' ... Defendant may renew his motion to sever at the time of trial if the appropriate circumstances arise.”
In Thomas v. Axtell, she recommended dismissing an unrepresented plaintiff's action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b); the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.”
In Born v. Saul, she entered a stipulated sentence-four remand of a Social Security appeal for further administrative proceedings.
“this case is remanded, pursuant to sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), to the Commissioner of Social Security for supplemental hearing and further administrative action.”
In Famuyide v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., she ordered a renewed corporate-witness deposition and fee shifting after discovery problems, and required local counsel to take an active role in later filings and proceedings.
“Defendants' local counsel, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, must participate in the preparation and presentation of all aspects of this case going forward. This participation includes reviewing all correspondence between counsel, participation in all meet-and-confers, reviewing all of Defendants' court filings before they are made, signing all filings, and local counsel's in-person appearance at all depositions and court proceedings going forward.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Priebnow's motion for severance from co-defendants (Doc. No. [169]) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal of Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 13] is DENIED.”
“this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.”
District Judge Donovan W. Frank adopted Magistrate Judge Wright's April 1, 2019 R&R over pro se plaintiff Joel Munt's objections after de novo review. The R&R recommended sua sponte prisoner-screening dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915A of claims against the Minnesota Courts on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and against the United States Courts on sovereign-immunity and subject-matter-jurisdiction grounds, all without prejudice. Although no party motion prompted the screening, the objections received de novo review and the order contains substantive immunity analysis.
District Judge Katherine M. Menendez adopted Magistrate Judge Wright's March 25, 2024 R&R after clear-error review and no objections, accepting it in full and dismissing the matter sua sponte and without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Chief District Judge John R. Tunheim adopted Magistrate Judge Wright's April 7, 2020 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation without objections and dismissed the pro se action sua sponte and without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
“Young's motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. No. [25]) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Jean Loic Ouedraogo's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 331) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Barbara Schmitt's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 18) is GRANTED; and 3. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 22) is GRANTED. ... All claims against Hennepin County are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Defendants Deputy Lisa Kasparek and Deputy Jeffrey Marshall are required to answer or otherwise properly respond to the Complaint, as to Plaintiff's First and Fifth Amendment claims against them in their individual capacities.”
District Judge Donovan W. Frank adopted Magistrate Judge Wright's October 23, 2020 R&R without objections. The pro se plaintiff's complaint was dismissed sua sponte on Section 1915A and jurisdictional screening grounds, with prejudice as to one federal claim and without prejudice as to the remaining claims.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. 24) be GRANTED and Plaintiff be AWARDED $3,675.00 for reasonable attorney's fees under the EAJA.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The assigned-case sample is dominated by Social Security appeals taken by consent, with additional insurance and wage-and-hour matters.
- The two sampled Social Security cases ended in stipulated sentence-four remands rather than contested merits rulings, followed by unopposed attorney-fee awards.
- Born v. Saul lasted about 346 days, including a stay for production of the administrative transcript; Blong v. Bisignano lasted about 284 days.
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 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 District of Minnesota, not for Judge Wright: 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 | 2,681 | 8.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,499 | 5.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 645 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 525 | 13.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 39.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,681 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,636 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,579 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,701 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,737 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 3,259 | 14.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,151 | 21.6 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 Wright with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wright, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wright's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace