Stephanie K. Bowman
How Judge Bowman rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman is Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. She joined the federal bench on October 29, 2010, and became chief magistrate judge on January 1, 2025. She earned degrees from the University of Illinois, DePaul University, and Duke University.
Judge Bowman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bowman, 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
Motions
In civil cases, a party seeking argument by an attorney within six years of law school may file a notice after briefing.
“newer attorney (who has graduated from law school within the past six years)”
Discovery
Judge Bowman ordinarily allows six months for civil discovery.
“This Court=s general rule is to permit six months of discovery.”
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).
- General Order 24-02 In Re: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- U.S. District Court General Order No. 24-05 ↗
- General Order 23-03 In Re: Automatic Sealing and Procedures for Unsealing of Applications for Search Warrants, Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices, or Court Orders Under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). ↗
How Judge Bowman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Coverdale v. Conley, she recommended granting defense summary judgment after finding that medical records contradicted the prisoner's affidavit; the district court adopted her recommendation.
“the Magistrate's Report (Doc. 34) is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) is GRANTED and this case shall be TERMINATED from the Court's docket.”
Procedural preferences
In McKinnis v. Aero Fulfillment, she recommended dismissing the pro se plaintiff's Title VII disability claim while allowing a construed ADA claim and leave to amend; the district court adopted the recommendation.
“defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED in part. To the extent that plaintiff has raised claims under Title VII, such claims are DISMISSED. Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims under the ADA are DENIED. Plaintiff is permitted to file an amended complaint as to her ADA claims including supporting factual allegations.”
In Cole, Bowman denied dismissal sanctions for discovery noncompliance where the record did not show that lesser sanctions had been tried or would fail.
“The Court has not previously imposed lesser sanctions, and the present record does not establish that lesser measures would be ineffective.”
Cautions
Recommends denying a plaintiff's motion for default judgment and dismissing under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)/1915A for failure of timely service and failure to state a claim.
“Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 11) is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's construed motion to remand (Doc. 6) is DENIED”
“Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 5) is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED with prejudice”
“Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 11) is DENIED.”
“the Magistrate's Report (Doc. 34) is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) is GRANTED and this case shall be TERMINATED from the Court's docket.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) be DENIED ... the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety”
“Plaintiff's additional motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21) be DENIED AS MOOT given that the motion was intended for another federal civil action.”
“the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety ... the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 23).”
“defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED in part. To the extent that plaintiff has raised claims under Title VII, such claims are DISMISSED. Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims under the ADA are DENIED. Plaintiff is permitted to file an amended complaint as to her ADA claims including supporting factual allegations.”
“Defendant's decision is SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, and is AFFIRMED, and that this case is CLOSED.”
“it is herein RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion to remand this matter to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (Doc. 13) be GRANTED”
Prisoner civil-rights complaint screened under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. The recommendation is that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice on judicial and prosecutorial immunity grounds and because a sheriff's office is not a suable person; grounding language: 'the complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).' Sua sponte screening, no motion adjudicated.
In forma pauperis employment complaint screened under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). The recommendation is a mixed disposition: the Section 1983 civil-rights claim should be dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim while the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims should be permitted to proceed; grounding language: claims 'should be permitted to PROCEED at this juncture.' Sua sponte screening, no motion adjudicated.
Habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2254. After a notice was filed reporting the petitioner's death, the recommendation is that the petition be dismissed as moot for want of jurisdiction; grounding language: 'petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 be DISMISSED as moot.' Procedural mootness dismissal, no merits adjudication.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23) be GRANTED and that this case be CLOSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
A current assigned-case sample is dominated by Social Security appeals and criminal-duty matters. The reviewed civil timelines also include a contract case assigned to Bowman by the parties’ consent and a civil-rights case referred for a recommendation. This targeted sample is illustrative.
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 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Southern District of Ohio, not for Judge Bowman: 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 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,037 | 7.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 810 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 343 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,137 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,153 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,311 | 12.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,287 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,012 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,561 | 41.6 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 Bowman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bowman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bowman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace