Paul J. Cleary
How Judge Cleary rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Cleary no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Cleary
Paul J. Cleary served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma from 2002 through 2019 and later assisted the court on recall. Before joining the bench, he practiced law in Tulsa. He earned degrees from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and the University of Tulsa College of Law.
How Judge Cleary decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rodriguez, Cleary remanded because the ALJ discounted a treating physician’s opinion for lacking objective support even though the ALJ’s own decision summarized the physician’s laboratory tests and treatment findings.
“The ALJ stated that no evidence existed, but the ALJ actually summarized the results of the objective laboratory tests that Dr. Calvin ordered.”
In Hausher, Cleary remanded because the ALJ had not discussed the claimant’s hand and arm symptoms. The record could support different findings on those limitations, so he left that assessment to the ALJ on remand.
“Since the ALJ did not specifically discuss Plaintiff's hand and arm complaints, the court cannot determine whether the ALJ found the hand complaints were adequately addressed... An argument can be made that the medical records support a finding of hand limitations. Likewise the evidence can be read as supporting no hand limitations. This determination should be made in the first instance by the ALJ.”
Procedural preferences
In Watkins, Cleary affirmed the denial of disability benefits after finding that the ALJ tied his assessment of the claimant’s symptoms to examination records, treatment response, and a psychologist’s opinion.
“In his decision, the ALJ discussed the portions of the records he believed contradict Watkins’ subjective statements, thus satisfying his duty to support his credibility finding with substantial evidence.”
In Hausher v. Social Security Administration, Cleary observed that the Commissioner could not be faulted for answering the claimant's broad opening brief before her reply identified hand and arm symptoms as the focus. He nevertheless remanded because the ALJ's decision did not discuss those complaints.
“That focus was not apparent from Plaintiff’s opening brief. As a result, the Commissioner cannot be faulted for the manner in which Plaintiff’s broad generalized allegations were addressed.”
Cautions
In Rodriguez, Cleary remanded for a fuller assessment of a treating physician’s opinion but expressly took no position on the merits of the claimant’s disability application or the result on remand.
“Nor does the Court take any position on the merits of Rodriguez's disability claim, and '(no) particular result' is ordered on remand... This case is remanded only to assure that the correct legal standards are invoked in reaching a decision based on the facts of the case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Commissioner’s denial decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings as specified herein.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED.”
“Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner finding Farmer is not disabled is hereby AFFIRMED.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED.”
“Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner finding Allen is not disabled is hereby AFFIRMED.”
“Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner finding Watkins is not disabled is hereby AFFIRMED.”
“Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner finding White is not disabled is hereby AFFIRMED.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 459 days (N = 30).
Case-level enumeration only; the sampled cohort below is limited to the Social Security appeals with retained opinions.
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 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Cleary no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.