William Brian Gaddy
How Judge Gaddy rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gaddy
William Brian Gaddy became a United States magistrate judge in the Western District of Missouri in 2020. He earned his law degree from the University of Missouri–Kansas City and handles referred civil and criminal matters.
Judge Gaddy's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gaddy, 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
Conferences
Submit a mediation statement no later than three business days before the conference.
“Each party shall submit a mediation/settlement conference statement (‘statement’) by no later than three business days prior to the scheduled mediation/settlement conference”
Conferences
Lead trial counsel and a party representative with complete settlement authority must personally attend mediation.
“Lead trial counsel must personally attend. (b) Parties: Parties with full and complete settlement authority must personally attend”
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 Gaddy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Garner’s felon-in-possession case, Judge Gaddy recommended denying a facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenge to Section 922(g)(1) under binding Eighth Circuit decisions. He also noted Garner’s recent violent felony convictions would defeat an individualized challenge even if one were available.
“Even if Eighth Circuit precedent allowed for an ‘as-applied’ challenge for non-violent offenders or offenders with older felony convictions, this type of challenge would likely be unavailable or unsuccessful in this case.”
In United States v. Garner, Gaddy recommended denying a motion to suppress after finding that marijuana odor from Garner's vehicle supplied probable cause to search it under the automobile exception.
“the odor of marijuana emanating from Defendant’s vehicle provided Officer Schmidli with probable cause to search the vehicle for evidence of marijuana-impaired driving under the automobile exception.”
Procedural preferences
In Rosas, Judge Gaddy denied a recusal request raised in the closing paragraph of a dismissal motion because Rosas supplied no legal authority or factual basis for recusal and Gaddy found no personal knowledge or bias requiring it.
“Defendant’s failure to provide any legal authority or factual basis for the undersigned to recuse is fatal to his request.”
Cautions
In United States v. Thompson, Gaddy recommended denying suppression after finding the defendant's testimony about consent not credible and the detectives' testimony credible.
“the undersigned finds Defendant’s testimony was not credible and that the testimony of Detectives Lanaman and Love was credible.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Case (Doc. 27).”
“the undersigned recommends Defendant’s motion to suppress be DENIED.”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. Doc. 22.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED.”
“To the extent Defendant’s motion requests recusal of the undersigned, the request is DENIED.”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Eight of the Indictment (Doc. 67).”
“RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 54).”
At a competency hearing, both sides stipulated to consideration of an updated psychiatric report and offered no additional evidence. The report found that symptoms continued to prevent the defendant from understanding the proceedings or assisting in his defense and that restoration was unlikely in the foreseeable future. The magistrate judge recommended a dangerousness examination and continued commitment; the district judge adopted the recommendation in full on March 18, 2026.
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 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Western District of Missouri, not for Judge Gaddy: 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 | 1,429 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 520 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 876 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 19 | 49.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,429 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,461 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,502 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,738 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,341 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,312 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,485 | 7 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 Gaddy with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gaddy, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gaddy's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace