Steven P. Shreder
How Judge Shreder rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Shreder
Steven P. Shreder began serving as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma in 2003. After another judge took the active magistrate seat in 2022, Shreder continued to hear matters on recall. His work has included consent civil cases, Social Security appeals, and criminal proceedings.
Judge Shreder's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Shreder's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Shreder decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mason v. O'Malley, Shreder found that the ALJ had not adequately explained whether the claimant could complete detailed tasks given his concentration problems and medication side effects.
“the ALJ does not adequately explain whether Claimant can complete detailed tasks given his moderate understanding and concentration issues assessed and the known side effects caused by his required medications.”
An ALJ's characterization of a claimant's daily activities as more capable than the record supports is treated as a standalone, reversible error, separate from any medical-evidence dispute.
“the ALJ's description of her activities is not an accurate characterization of her activities as noted above. The Court finds 'an ALJ cannot use mischaracterizations of a claimant's activities to discredit his claims of disabling limitations.'”
In Cornell, Shreder reversed a benefits denial when the Appeals Council refused to exhibit a new treating specialist’s assessment that could affect the outcome.
“its refusal to exhibit and further consider the medical source statement containing those opinions based on a lack of materiality was improper as a matter of law.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Robinson, Shreder found that state officers investigating a death in Indian Country had acted in good faith when they believed they had jurisdiction, a finding he considered in the suppression analysis.
“the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that the Oklahoma Sheriff's Office and its officers undoubtedly acted with the good faith belief that they had jurisdiction to conduct the investigation into the death of Mr. Parker... the deterrence benefits of suppression must outweigh its heavy costs.”
A motion attacking the sufficiency of an indictment's underlying evidence, rather than its facial allegations, is not a proper vehicle for dismissal absent government consent to look outside the indictment's four corners.
“Because the Defendants' motion attacks the sufficiency of the Indictment based on facts not alleged in the Indictment, and because the United States objects to the consideration of those facts, this motion does not present the 'rare exception' that Tenth Circuit precedent contemplates.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Defendant Western Heritage Insurance Company's Partial Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Docket No. 8] is hereby GRANTED, and that the Plaintiff's second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action are hereby DISMISSED.”
“the undersigned Magistrate Judge now hereby recommends that the motion to suppress be DENIED.”
“the undersigned Magistrate Judge therefore finds that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be denied.”
“RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Dismiss Indictment and/or Motion to Suppress Evidence and Memorandum in Support [Docket No. 60] be GRANTED to the extent the Defendant's statements following his arrest should be suppressed, but otherwise DENIED.”
“the decision of the Commissioner must be reversed and the case remanded to the ALJ for further analysis of the claimant's RFC”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Commissioner's decision is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED.”
“Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED.”
“the decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED.”
“the Commissioner’s decision is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The caseload sample is dominated by consent Social Security disability appeals and other consent civil litigation, including insurance, employment, civil-rights, and class-settlement matters.
- A smaller group involves referred criminal proceedings such as suppression, detention, and indictment challenges in Indian Country prosecutions following McGirt v. Oklahoma.
- Shreder continued to receive cases on recall as of 2025.
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 | 2 | 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 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 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 Oklahoma, not for Judge Shreder: 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 Shreder with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Shreder, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Shreder's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace