Stephen R. Welby
How Judge Welby rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Welby
Stephen R. Welby is a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. He joined the court in August 2020 after serving as Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of Illinois. Earlier, he practiced criminal defense and served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Missouri.
Judge Welby's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Welby, 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
Filing
Attach proposed orders and judgments as PDFs and email an editable version to the career law clerk.
“Any proposed order or proposed judgment must be filed electronically as a pdf attachment to the motion or memorandum to which it pertains. Additionally, the proposed order or judgment must be emailed to my career law clerk, Laura Leister, at [email protected], in a word processing format.”
Discovery
Before moving to compel, schedule a video conference with the court and send a joint summary of no more than one page.
“Before a motion to compel is filed, the parties are required to schedule a video conference with the Court and to send the Court a joint summary, no longer than one page, of the issues on which the parties seek the Court’s guidance.”
Discovery
A motion to compel filed before scheduling the video conference is denied without prejudice.
“Any motions filed before a video conference is scheduled will be denied without prejudice.”
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).
How Judge Welby decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Jones, he recommended denying suppression because the rental car passenger had not shown lawful possession or control sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy.
“Judge Welby found that Jones lacked standing because he failed to meet his ‘burden of establishing he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car by introducing evidence showing he was in lawful possession and control of the vehicle.’”
In United States v. North, he found the consent search voluntary in light of the lack of coercion and the defendant's later revocation of consent; the district judge adopted the recommendation after reviewing objections.
“There is no evidence that agents used threats, physical intimidation, or force to coerce consent. ... The lack of coercion or intimidation by the agents is evident in that Defendant did not hesitate to later revoke his consent when the agents found a safe and currency in his apartment. This also indicates Defendant was aware of his right to refuse consent. The totality of the circumstances indicates that Defendant's consent was knowing and voluntary.”
In United States v. Patterson, he recommended denying a Second Amendment challenge to a felon in possession indictment because Eighth Circuit precedent foreclosed the argument.
“the Eighth Circuit has foreclosed Defendant's arguments as to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). The undersigned will recommend Defendant's motion be denied.”
Procedural preferences
In Social Security appeals, a medical-opinion analysis must address both supportability and consistency. Listing records or reaching a conclusion without explaining how the opinion itself is supported can require remand.
“The Court finds that Plaintiff is correct that the decision entirely fails to address the supportability of Dr. Weiss’s opinion, which alone requires remand.”
In United States v. North, he held a hearing on the suppression motion before recommending denial; the district judge reviewed the objections and adopted the recommendation.
“Magistrate Judge Welby conducted a hearing on the motion on May 7, 2024, and issued his Report and Recommendation on July 24, 2024, recommending that the undersigned deny the motion.”
In United States v. Carroll, he recommended denying disclosure of grand jury materials because the defendant had not shown a particularized need.
“Defendant Carroll has failed to articulate a particularized need for the grand jury materials he seeks. He has not shown grounds may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury.”
Cautions
In the Patterson report and recommendation, he advised the parties of the 14 day period for written objections and warned that untimely objections could waive appellate review of factual questions.
“The parties are advised that they have 14 days in which to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to timely file objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Welby found that Jones lacked standing because he failed to meet his ‘burden of establishing he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car by introducing evidence showing he was in lawful possession and control of the vehicle.’ ... The Court agrees with Judge Welby's conclusions and denies Jones's Motion to Suppress, doc. 84.”
“Judge Welby therefore recommends granting Jones's Motion to Sever, doc. 158. ... The Court agrees with Judge Welby's and grants Jones's Motion to Sever, doc. 158.”
“the Motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Stephen R. Welby, who recommended that the Motions be denied. ... the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Stephen R. Welby, Doc. [118], is SUSTAINED, ADOPTED, and INCORPORATED herein, and Defendant Moreion Lindsey's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence, Doc. [85] ... [is] DENIED.”
“Defendant Moreion Lindsey's ... Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, or Confessions, Doc. [86], are DENIED.”
“Magistrate Judge Welby conducted a hearing on the motion on May 7, 2024, and issued his Report and Recommendation on July 24, 2024, recommending that the undersigned deny the motion. ... the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Stephen R. Welby, Doc. [79] ... be and hereby is SUSTAINED, ADOPTED, and INCORPORATED herein ... Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements, Doc. [31], is DENIED.”
“Defendant Carroll has failed to articulate a particularized need for the grand jury materials he seeks. He has not shown grounds may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury. ... IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Christopher Lee Carroll's Motion for Disclosure of Certain Testimony and Legal Instructions Provided to the Grand Jury (ECF No. 36) should be DENIED as set forth above.”
“Because the Government has provided the information Defendant seeks, the undersigned recommends the motion be denied, as moot. ... IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Motion for Bill of Particulars (ECF No. 42) be DENIED, as moot.”
“the Eighth Circuit has foreclosed Defendant's arguments as to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). The undersigned will recommend Defendant's motion be denied. ... IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Rodney Patterson's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (ECF No. 42) be DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Donald Held’s Motion for Bond Reconsideration, ECF No. 21, is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for Pretrial Detention, (ECF No. 7), is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for Pretrial Detention, ECF No. 10, is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Caravan Logistics, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED with respect to Count II and Count III.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Pei Zhao and Caravan Logistics, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No.61) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The selected dockets include referred criminal pretrial matters and directly assigned civil cases. A directly assigned government civil case ended in an agreed dismissal after settlement; recent newly filed civil cases include disability appeals and prisoner civil-rights claims. This is a small, selected sample.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Eastern Division, St. Louis), not for Judge Welby: 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 | 1,561 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 502 | 4.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,031 | 7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 16 | 15.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 31.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,561 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,525 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,323 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,466 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,424 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,950 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,913 | 2.2 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 Welby with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Welby, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Welby's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace