Mark T. Steele
How Judge Steele rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Steele
Mark T. Steele began serving as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma in April 2023. Before joining the court, he practiced law in Tulsa and tried more than 125 jury cases to verdict. He earned his law degree from the University of Tulsa College of Law.
Judge Steele's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Steele, 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
Discovery
When ordered, file a joint discovery status report every 30 days after the scheduling order.
“When ordered by the Court, the parties shall file a Joint Discovery Status Report every thirty (30) days after the filing of the Scheduling Order.”
Trial
List every proposed trial witness by name; generic descriptions such as records custodians are insufficient.
“All witnesses must be specifically named. Witness descriptions such as ‘records custodians’ or ‘rebuttal witnesses’ are improper.”
Trial
Prepare separate exhibit notebooks for the witness stand, opposing counsel, court, and deputy.
“Counsel are required to prepare separate exhibit notebooks for: (1) the witness stand; (2) opposing Counsel; (3) the Court; and (4) the Court’s courtroom deputy.”
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 Steele decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Maurice D. H., Steele remanded a Social Security appeal because the ALJ’s assessment of the claimant’s subjective symptoms was conclusory and insufficiently connected to the record for meaningful review.
“The ALJ's findings are conclusory and fail to meet the requirements of SSR 16-3p, as they are not 'closely and affirmatively' linked to record evidence or 'clearly articulated' to allow for meaningful review by the Court.”
In Rachel M. W., Steele held that the ALJ had no further duty to convert a consulting examiner’s physical finding into a functional restriction when the examiner identified no specific limitation.
“Dr. Konsure did not attribute any specific functional limitations to her findings. Thus, other than considering the evidence, the ALJ had no other duty.”
In Ruth E. T. v. O'Malley, Steele affirmed the Commissioner's decision after holding that a consultative examiner's statement that the claimant was not emotionally capable of employment addressed an issue reserved to the Commissioner. The ALJ was not required to evaluate that statement as a medical opinion.
“The Court agrees with the Commissioner that the ALJ was not required to consider Dr. Shaver’s statement that Plaintiff ‘is not emotionally capable of employment[]’ or evaluate the statement pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c.”
In Veronica V. v. O'Malley, Steele reversed and remanded because the ALJ found state agency psychologists' opinions persuasive yet gave no explanation for omitting their one- or two-step task limit from the residual functional capacity.
“He provided no explanation for why he seemingly rejected the limitation to ‘simple tasks of 1-2 steps,’ ultimately including a limitation of ‘performing simple tasks and making simple work-related decisions’ in the RFC.”
Procedural preferences
In Pleasant v. Arts and Humanities Council of Tulsa, Steele dismissed the pro se plaintiff's case with prejudice after repeated failures to attend in-person hearings, discovery noncompliance, prior warnings, and ineffective monetary sanctions. He considered the relevant dismissal factors on the record.
“The Court finds that the factors outweigh this strong predisposition and dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate sanction in this case. Plaintiff has refused to cooperate with Defendant in discovery, ignored several court orders, refused to attend any in-person proceeding, and continually engaged in unprofessional behavior to Defendant's counsel and court staff.”
In Pleasant v. Arts and Humanities Council of Tulsa, Steele granted an unopposed motion to compel initial disclosures and required the defendant to apply for its reasonable Rule 37 costs. After reviewing the application, he awarded $652.50 of the $1,196.92 requested.
“As none of the statutory exceptions apply, the Court is required to award reasonable costs, including attorney fees, to Defendant.”
In Hudson Insurance Co. v. Townsell, Steele found an endorsement-coverage question premature while the underlying suit remained pending, and deferred that question after resolving a separate coverage issue on summary judgment.
“The Court finds Hudson's request for a declaratory judgment regarding the Endorsement's application to the November 24, 2019, accident to be premature and not yet ripe for review.”
In Toni M. P., Steele remanded a Social Security appeal because the ALJ had not resolved a conflict between the claimant’s functional limits and the demands of her past work, and had identified no alternative jobs.
“The Court finds there is an unresolved inconsistency between Plaintiff's RFC and her PRW. As such, the absence of any identification of alternative jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy by the ALJ requires reversal.”
Cautions
In Holder v. Target Corp., Steele denied summary judgment on a premises-liability claim because jurors could differ over whether a visible door handle and sign gave a deceptively safe impression. He separately granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's request for punitive damages.
“Although the door handle and sign were observable, reasonable minds could differ as to whether the combination of the handle and sign presented a 'deceptively innocent appearance' of safety.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
“OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Mark T Steele affirming the decision of the Commissioner.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ's decision finding Plaintiff not disabled is AFFIRMED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Steele's enumerated docket includes a sustained run of consent-track Social Security disability appeals inherited from cases filed in 2022 (before his appointment) through his 2026 caseload, alongside insurance-coverage, personal-injury, and employment-discrimination matters the parties consented to have him resolve to final judgment.
- Eighteen Social Security appeals sampled across his tenure were decided by Steele himself under Section 636(c) consent, weighted heavily toward affirmances of the Commissioner's denial of benefits.
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 |
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 Northern District of Oklahoma, not for Judge Steele: 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 | 525 | 7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 112 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 401 | 7.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 525 | 7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 491 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 487 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 526 | 13.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 481 | 11.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 563 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 544 | 9.8 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 Steele with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Steele, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Steele's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace