D. Edward Snow
How Judge Snow rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Snow
D. Edward Snow has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma since 2023, sitting in Muskogee. Before joining the bench, he was an assistant U.S. attorney handling federal criminal cases in Oklahoma.
Judge Snow's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Snow, 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.
- Consent Form After Referral ↗
- Joint Status Report ↗
- Pretrial Order ↗
- Sample Scheduling Order ↗
- Trial and Hearing Rules ↗
Key rules
Discovery
The joint status report calls for specific fact and law stipulations.
“‘None at this time’ is not an appropriate response.”
Trial
Motions in limine filed after the pretrial conference are untimely and will not be considered.
“Motions in Limine filed after the pretrial conference are untimely and will not be considered.”
Trial
Provide exhibit notebooks for the court and law clerk at least one week before the pretrial conference.
“The parties shall provide the exhibit notebooks identified in (iii) and (iv) at least one week in advance of the pretrial conference”
Trial
Mark exhibits before the court session begins.
“Court time may not be used for marking exhibits. This must be done in advance of the court session.”
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 Snow decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Social Security appeal, Snow upheld the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Beene’s opinions were unsupported by his own largely normal musculoskeletal examinations.
“Dr. Beene's musculoskeletal examination findings were, in fact, entirely normal except for decreased range of motion and strength in Claimant's right hip on September 30, 2016 ... Thus, the ALJ's determination that Dr. Beene's opinions were not supported by his own treatment notes is supported by substantial evidence.”
In Harris v. McCurtain County Jail Trust, Snow recommended denying dismissal of the county commissioners' board from the plaintiff's § 1983 claims. He found the board a proper party at the pleading stage after considering the substance of the allegations and Oklahoma's rule for naming a county defendant.
“Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge concludes, at this time, the Board of County Commissioners is a proper party to Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims.”
Procedural preferences
In Harris v. McCurtain County Jail Trust, Snow denied defendant Manning's motion to quash her deposition while her immunity motion was pending. He found she would have relevant fact testimony even if dismissed as a party, and she had not shown the proposed discovery was avoidable or overly broad.
“Qualified immunity 'does not shield [Defendant Officers] from all discovery but only from discovery which is either avoidable or overly broad.'”
In a discovery dispute, Snow overruled Crawley’s proportionality objections, noting that the burden of responding weighs more heavily on the party with more information.
“recognizing that 'the burden of responding to discovery [properly] lies heavier on the party who has more information,' the Court overrules Crawley's objections based on the requested discovery's disproportionality.”
Cautions
In Quintana v. Marrs, Snow denied a self-represented plaintiff’s request to reconsider an amendment deadline after he said he had not received a mailed order. Snow found that monitoring the docket would have revealed the order in time.
“Had Plaintiff been monitoring the docket as he was required to do, he would have timely discovered Judge White’s order.”
In Parker-Taylor v. Carter School District No. 19, Snow denied reconsideration after the plaintiff missed the response deadline without good cause. He deemed the defendant's properly supported facts admitted, then independently assessed whether those facts entitled the defendant to summary judgment.
“Accordingly, Defendant’s sixty-three (63) undisputed material facts set forth in its Motion for Summary Judgment were deemed admitted and were accepted as true, to the extent that they were supported by the evidence presented.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 59) be DENIED.”
“As such, Defendant's Motion to Quash the Deposition is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Spoliation Sanctions against Defendant Terry Park, in his official capacity, (Docket No. 192) is hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider and Allow Plaintiff to Amend Complaint and to Request Additional Time to file Amended Complaint (Docket No. 55) is hereby DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendants Marrs, Fevig, and Curtis be dismissed for lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends Plaintiff claims against Defendants the County of Muskogee, the City of Muskogee and the City of Fort Gibson be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”
“For the reasons set forth herein, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Missy St. Clair, Charlie Rosenblum, Matthew Wollaston, and Hali McMillen's and Defendants Oklahoma Department of Human Services and Deborah Shropshire in her official capacity's Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 14 and 15) are hereby GRANTED.”
28 U.S.C. Section 1915A screening order on a pretrial detainee's pro se Section 1983 complaint over inadequate medical care for a broken arm and denial of religious access. The court found the complaint failed Rule 8/Twombly pleading standards against a group of defendants without individualized allegations and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the court's form within 21 days, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
“Accordingly, the Court finds a Receiver is appropriate in this case and Defendants' Motion to Vacate the Receiver Order is hereby DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner's decision finding Claimant not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
“For all the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Compel (Docket No. 41).”
“For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Notice of Removal should be GRANTED, and this case should be remanded to State Court for further proceedings.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The caseload sample is dominated by consent Social Security disability appeals decided under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), along with civil-rights and prisoner suits, removed insurance and commercial-contract disputes, and referred federal criminal matters.
- Snow inherited part of Kimberly E.
- West's pending civil docket after taking office in May 2023; later fee and case-management orders are attributed to him, while earlier merits rulings remain attributed to West.
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 | 15 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 4 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 15 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 9 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 6 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 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 Oklahoma, not for Judge Snow: 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 | 329 | 7.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 12 | 2.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 309 | 7.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 3 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 5 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 329 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 375 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 327 | 13.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 290 | 15.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 326 | 13 months |
| Sep 2020 | 325 | 12.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 370 | 11.8 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 Snow with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Snow, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Snow's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace