Patrick Robert Wyrick
How Judge Wyrick rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wyrick
Patrick Robert Wyrick is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Wyrick received a commission on April 10, 2019.
Judge Wyrick's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Wyrick'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 Wyrick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Loma, he granted summary judgment after finding the danger from a rain-wet floor was commonly known and did not require a separate warning.
“Since the dangers of slipping on a floor after walking through rain are ‘universally known,’ Walmart had no duty to warn Mrs. Loma of the dangerous condition or to modify its premises to protect Mrs. Loma.”
In Portillo, he denied suppression after finding specific facts known to officers collectively supplied reasonable suspicion at the time of the patdown.
“the officers were appraised of specific, articulable facts that combined to generate reasonable suspicion at the time of the patdown search”
In an immigration detention habeas case, he applied intervening Tenth Circuit law to require a bond hearing or release while reserving unresolved claims.
“Because the Petition alleges—and Respondents do not dispute—that ICE arrested Petitioner within the interior United States, Quiroz mandates that he is detained pursuant to § 1226(a).”
In Tewelde, he denied temporary detention relief after finding the petitioner’s detention lawful under the statute applicable to that case and therefore finding no cognizable irreparable injury.
“unlawful, and therefore he suffers no cognizable irreparable harm.”
Procedural preferences
In Troppman, he denied a request to compel a nonparty deposition because the plaintiffs had not first issued a subpoena.
“Because Plaintiffs did not first issue a subpoena, the Court DENIES the Motion to Compel”
In McKeown, he required a separate, rule-compliant motion within thirty days before the plaintiff could amend after partial dismissal.
“Should Plaintiff wish to file an amended complaint, she must move to do so within 30 days of this Order and comply with Local Civil Rule 15.1.”
In Lewis, he denied the plaintiff’s request to strike parts of a summary judgment motion because the earlier leave order had not limited the theories the defendants could raise.
“neither the Court’s Order (Dkt. 38) nor the Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 38) expressly limited the summary judgment motion to Plaintiff’s negligence claim. The Court therefore denies the Motion to Strike (Dkt. 55).”
Cautions
In McKeown, he warned that further reliance on falsified legal authority could result in sanctions, including filing restrictions or monetary penalties.
“any future references to falsified legal authority will result in sanctions, such as filing restrictions, monetary penalties, or dismissal of her case.”
In a vehicle-insurance dispute, he excluded expert opinions framed as vague or inaccurate legal and industry standards because they risked confusing the jury.
“when those ‘industry standards’ are based on amorphous, vague, and sometimes incorrect references to supposedly governing laws, the testimony is more likely to confuse the jury than aid it.”
In Reed, he first permitted amendment after dismissing the original complaint, then dismissed the amended federal claims with prejudice after finding further amendment futile and repeated violations of the child-privacy redaction rule.
“futile and because of Plaintiff’s failure to follow Court orders and Rule 5.2, the Court’s dismissal as to the federal claims is WITH PREJUDICE.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. 23); STRIKES this case from the Court’s October 2023 trial docket; and STRIKES the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 22) and the deadlines set forth therein.”
“Accordingly, judgment as a matter of law is warranted and Walmart’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED.”
“State Farm’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 11) is DENIED IN PART as to the foundational issue of coverage and State Farm’s potential duties to defend and indemnify, and GRANTED IN PART as to the bar on punitive damages.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS State Farm’s Opposed Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 34)”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS State Farm’s Opposed Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 34) and Opposed Motion to Redact Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment and Seal Certain Exhibits Thereto (Dkt. 35).”
“State Farm’s second motion for summary judgment (Dkts. 46, 47) is thus GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 20), REMANDS the case to the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, and DENIES all other pending motions (Dkts. 6, 7, 23) as moot.”
“For the reasons given, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 28) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons given, Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. 29) is DENIED.”
“Because Plaintiffs did not first issue a subpoena, the Court DENIES the Motion to Compel (Dkt. 35).”
“Upon review, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Mitchell’s Report & Recommendation (Dkt. 19) in its entirety and AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner.”
“Accordingly, the Motion to Suppress (Dkt. 27) is DENIED.”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. 30) and EXCLUDES Rankin’s testimony.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 603 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 238 days (N = 7).
The twelve sampled cases included insurance, employment, product-liability, contract, foreclosure, civil-rights, and other civil matters. The ten terminated cases had a median duration of 603 days; this narrow sample is not a career-wide estimate.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 23 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 10 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 21 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 6 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 18 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 49 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 36 | 2 |
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 Western District of Oklahoma, not for Judge Wyrick: 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 | 1,011 | 6.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 361 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 461 | 6.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 185 | 12.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,011 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,062 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 863 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 932 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 958 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 944 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,040 | 8.5 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 Wyrick with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wyrick, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wyrick's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace