Michael D. Nelson
How Judge Nelson rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Nelson
Michael D. Nelson became a United States magistrate judge in the District of Nebraska in June 2017. He earned his law degree from Creighton University School of Law and handles referred federal court matters.
Judge Nelson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Nelson, 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.
- Civil Jury Trial Practices ↗
- Civil Non-Jury Trial Practices ↗
- Reconsideration of Detention Motions ↗
Key rules
Motions
A detention reconsideration motion must state Probation and Pretrial Services’ and the Government’s positions.
“all motions for reconsideration of detention shall contain a statement as to the respective positions of Probation and Pretrial Services and the Government.”
Trial
In civil jury trials, file and email agreed instructions and a verdict form in Word at least two weeks before trial.
“At least two weeks before trial, counsel must file and email Word versions of the following to chambers:”
Trial
For civil bench trials, provide chambers a complete exhibit copy electronically or in a binder when the exhibit list goes to the clerk.
“Counsel shall provide to chambers a complete copy of exhibits in either an electronic format, e.g. thumb drive, or three-ring binder upon delivery of the exhibit list to the Clerk of Court.”
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 Nelson 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. Luviano-Cabrera, Nelson recommended denying suppression after finding that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights during a Spanish-language interview. He also found the question “What lawyer am I going to get?” was not an unequivocal request for counsel. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“Judge Nelson correctly concluded that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. ... the defendant's statement of 'What lawyer am I going to get?' was not an unequivocal request for counsel.”
In United States v. Williams, Nelson recommended denying a motion to dismiss a SORNA indictment on nondelegation grounds. He relied on Eighth Circuit precedent upholding the statute because the Supreme Court had not yet ruled in Gundy.
“Although the Supreme Court has granted certiorari on the same issue presented in this case, the Supreme Court has not issued its ruling. Therefore, this Court is bound to follow the standing precedent of the Eighth Circuit.”
In BJ’s Fleet Wash, Nelson recommended enforcing a signed mediation agreement after an evidentiary hearing. He found no evidence that the plaintiff’s owner had signed under duress despite later regret about the settlement. The district judge adopted the recommendation with a change to payment administration.
“buyer’s remorse is not a valid reason for undoing a valid settlement agreement.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Jimenez, Nelson advised the parties that objections to his guilty-plea recommendation were due within 14 calendar days and that missing the deadline could waive an objection.
“IT IS ORDERED that if any party desires to object to the findings and recommendation, they shall do so no later than 14 calendar days following the date of the findings and recommendation or they may be deemed to have waived the right to object to adoption of the findings and recommendation.”
Cautions
In Adams, Nelson declined to require a forensic examination of the plaintiff’s phones after counsel had produced responsive messages. He found the further examination disproportionate, while ordering narrower production of a severance policy and privilege log. The dispute was presented by email and conference rather than a separately filed motion.
“a forensic examination or further efforts are not proportional to the needs of the case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED to United States District Court Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Filing No. 17) be denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Judge Nelson's Findings and Recommendation, Filing 55, is adopted in its entirety and defendant Heleodoro Luviano-Cabrera's Motion to Suppress, Filing 38, is denied.”
Nelson's OWN signed Findings & Recommendation on a guilty plea: after a Rule 11 colloquy (defendant orally consented to plead before a magistrate and was advised of the right to appear before a district judge), he finds the plea knowing/intelligent/voluntary with a factual basis and recommends District Judge Buescher accept it. Rules on no contested party motion; counts as an order read, not toward motion stats.
“In a September 29, 2022, Findings and Recommendation, United States Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson recommended denying Cass's Motion to Suppress. Filing 29.”
“In his Findings and Recommendation, United States Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson concluded that Count IV of the Indictment...was duplicitous. Filing 30 at 2-3. As a remedy, Judge Nelson recommended that the Government elect to proceed only on the possession prong of Count IV.”
“Following an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge issued a Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 33) on July 5, 2019, recommending the Court deny the motion... Rogers's Motion to Suppress (Filing No. 18) is denied.”
“On November 28, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 47) recommending Burns's motion be denied... Burns's Motion to Suppress (Filing No. 35) is denied.”
“Upon the Motion of the United States (Filing No. 30), pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), leave of court is granted for the filing of the dismissal of the Complaint against SHANNON ROJAS. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Filing No. 30) is granted.”
“United States Magistrate Judge Nelson considered this Motion and issued a written Findings and Recommendation. Filing 71. Judge Nelson recommends that the Motion be denied. Filing 71 at 20... the Court adopts Judge Nelson's Findings and Recommendation, Filing 71, and denies Defendant's Motion to Suppress, Filing 40.”
“Judge Nelson submitted his Findings and Recommendation regarding the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements. Filing 72 at 1, 6. Judge Nelson recommends that this Motion be denied. Filing 72 at 6... adopts United States Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson's Findings and Recommendation, Filing 72, and denies Defendant's Motion to Suppress, Filing 55.”
“This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Filing No. 38). For the reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be denied.”
“Johannssen unsuccessfully sought to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search warrants executed in 2017 and 2021. Filing 24; Filing 41; Filing 42; Filing 43... The following facts are drawn from a Motion to Suppress hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson, Judge Nelson's Findings and Recommendation...”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 474 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 110 days (N = 1).
- Not systematically enumerated.
- Nelson-assigned dockets observed are consent-jurisdiction CIVIL cases (636(c)): Social-Security appeals (Nelson v. Saul), motor-vehicle/PI (Nelson v. Charter, Keim T.S. v. Best Trucking, Trew v. Hartter, Payne v. Walmart), and contract / product-liability (Landmark Snacks v. Gilman Cheese, Signal 88 v. RTC Security: both pending).
- His criminal footprint is as the 636(b) referral magistrate issuing F&Rs on suppression/dismissal/plea matters in cases assigned to district judges (Buescher, Rossiter), captured among the written rulings.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 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 United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, not for Judge Nelson: 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 | 734 | 5.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 210 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 506 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 27.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 5 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 734 | 5.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 522 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 467 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 667 | 5.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 588 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 508 | 8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 492 | 8.6 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 Nelson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Nelson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Nelson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace