Hildy Bowbeer
How Judge Bowbeer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Bowbeer's R&Rs hold up under de novo scrutiny, not just clear-error review: in three of the four contested adoptions read (Wagner, Meyer, Goodwin) a party filed objections, the district judge conducted a full de novo review, and adopted her recommendation anyway -- a signal her dispositive analysis is built to survive de novo, not merely deferential, review.
“Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bowbeer.”
She expects objections to an R&R to be specific. In Meyer v. Haeg the district judge adopted her recommendation in part because the pro se plaintiff's objections merely renewed prior arguments without addressing the magistrate judge's actual reasoning -- general or conclusory objections do not trigger de novo review and leave the recommendation reviewed only for (and surviving) clear error.
“the burden is on the objecting party to note—with specificity—the basis upon which he objects to each recommendation. ... General or conclusory objections are insufficient to trigger de novo review of the magistrate judge's report.”
On Social Security appeals she takes by consent, the pattern across the two terminated dockets sampled was the same: deny the claimant's motion for summary judgment and grant the Commissioner's -- i.e. affirm the agency. These are her FINAL rulings (consent jurisdiction), not recommendations.
“ORDER denying 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 19 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 5 |
Granted: 4Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Habeas petition N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for order to show cause N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for extension of time N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to reconsider detention N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Docket No. 33] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's equal protection claim and DENIED as to Plaintiffs' First Amendment claim.”
“Defendant John H. Pribyl's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 283] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant John H. Pribyl are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Defendant Michael Fuhrman's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 296] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Michael Fuhrman are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Defendant Janey Nelson's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 344] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Janey Nelson are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Defendant Sonia Mosch's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 357] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Sonia Mosch are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Plaintiff Harley Dean Meyer's Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Motion to Defendant Mosch's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 376] is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff Harley Dean Meyer's Motion for Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 367] is DENIED;”
“Defendant Salina Kay Goodwin's Motion to Reconsider Defendant's Order for Detention [Docket No. 309] is DENIED.”
“Petitioner Akoi Samolu's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Document read is District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright's Order adopting Magistrate Judge Bowbeer's March 17, 2022 R&R (Dkt. 8). No objections filed; reviewed for clear error, adopted, and the pro se plaintiff's complaint DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This is a sua sponte screening-style dismissal of a pro se complaint, not a ruling on a party motion -- excluded from motion stats per the runbook's non-motion-ruling guidance. Counts as an order read, not toward grant rates.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Of the 10 Bowbeer-assigned dockets surfaced via search_dockets, the dominant nature-of-suit is Social Security (DIWC/DIWW, SSID Tit. XVI, RSI) taken by consent; the remainder are -mj criminal duty assignments, one copyright case, and one employment civil-rights case (EEOC v. Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, terminated 2021-12-07). Sampled 2026-06-03; not exhaustive; full duration distribution not tabulated this thin pass. Example durations: Anderson v. Berryhill filed 2018-01-02, terminated 2019-03-27 (~449 days); Hurlbut v. Saul filed 2020-03-30, terminated 2021-06-11 (~438 days).