Jennifer P. Wilson

How Judge Wilson rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Position
District judge
Appointed by
Donald Trump (Republican)
Commissioned
November 8, 2019
Education
Swarthmore College (B.A., cum laude); Brooklyn Law School (J.D., summa cum laude)
Signed orders read
39

About Judge Wilson

Jennifer Philpott Wilson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Wilson received a commission on November 8, 2019.

Judge Wilson's practices and standing orders

Rules for cases before Judge Wilson, 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

Filing

Docket other written correspondence to the court in CM/ECF.

“Any other written correspondence to the court shall be docketed in CM/ECF.”

Motions

Put “Order,” rather than “Proposed Order,” in a proposed order heading.

“When filing a proposed order with a motion, include a heading as ‘Order’ rather than ‘Proposed Order’ or ‘[Proposed] Order.’”

Discovery

Use the court’s discovery dispute letter procedure before filing a motion to compel or another discovery motion.

“Prior to filing a motion to compel or any other type of discovery-oriented motion, the moving party must utilize this procedure.”

Trial

File a trial continuance motion at least one week before the scheduled trial date.

“All continuance motions shall be filed no later than one week prior to the scheduled trial date.”

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

How Judge Wilson decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In a premises-liability slip-and-fall case, the judge treated the size and visibility of the hazard shown in photographic evidence as controlling over the plaintiff's own account of not having seen it, applying an objective rather than subjective open-and-obvious standard.

“A reasonable person, in the position of Ziadeh, exercising ordinary perception, intelligence, and judgment would apprehend the danger that a one- to two-meter-long wooden pallet poses in a store aisle.”

Procedural preferences

In Bair v. Snyder, Wilson held that overlapping allegations against several officers satisfied Rule 8 because the complaint identified their roles and gave each defendant notice of the claims. She also declined to resolve a fact-dependent sovereign-immunity defense from the complaint alone.

“There is no confusion about who participated in the alleged wrongdoing or what each person’s role was. Accordingly, the complaint does not violate Rule 8, because each of the Defendants are put on notice about the claims against them and the factual basis for the claims.”

Where a party raises only general objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation rather than specific ones, the judge reviews only for clear error rather than de novo.

“When a party raises only general objections to a report and recommendation, a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Ziadeh v. Walmart Inc. a/k/a Sam's East, Inc. d/b/a Sam's Club
1:22-cv-00094-JPW · 2024-01-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Having carefully considered the record and arguments presented, the court concludes that the pallet was an open and obvious danger such that Sam's Club is not liable for Ziadeh's injuries. ... Therefore, the court will grant Sam's Club's motion for summary judgment.”

K.L. v. Scranton School District
3:19-cv-00670-JFS · 2020-01-03
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, Doc. 4, is DENIED.”

Brown v. Wetzel
1:21-cv-01828-JPW-EW · 2022-07-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' motion to dismiss, Doc. 28, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendants John Wetzel, Shannon Quegley, Kathy Brittain, and S. Kephart.”

Voss v. Manitowoc Cranes, LLC
1:20-cv-00754-JPW · 2021-03-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Plaintiff's disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (‘PHRA’) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... Plaintiff's claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (‘FMLA’) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... The motion to dismiss is denied with respect to Plaintiff's disparate treatment claim arising from her termination and with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claim.”

Davenport v. Del Toro
· 2022-03-31
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“According, the court will grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”

Stockton v. Wetzel
· 2022-09-06
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Based on a lack of evidence to support a finding of an understanding or agreement, the court will grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of the First Amendment conspiracy.”

Stockton v. Wetzel
· 2023-09-06
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“Considering Plaintiff was aware of this evidence and had access to this evidence through his family or could have gathered similar evidence through a deposition during the extensive discovery allotted in this action, the court does not consider this affidavit of Inmate Ferrell as ‘newly discovered evidence.’ The court finds Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for the court to reconsider its previous determination. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied.”

Motion in limine (plaintiff) Denied

“Based on the forgoing, the court will deny Plaintiff's motion in limine with leave to renew some of his evidentiary challenges during the trial, as discussed above.”

Motion for contempt (plaintiff) Denied

“Therefore, there has only been a single order requiring Defendants to reproduce evidence it had previously supplied, and Plaintiff has not alleged that this order was violated. As such, the court will deny Plaintiff's motion for contempt.”

Motion for forfeiture of counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“Likewise, the court will deny Plaintiff's attempt to have Defendants' counsel removed. (Doc. 307.) ... Additional attempts to sanction Defendants for discovery violations in this action will not be entertained by the court and will be viewed as deliberate attempts to delay the case.”

Dixon v. United States
· 2020-03-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons that follow, Judge Arbuckle's report and recommendation is adopted in part, modified in part, and rejected in part; the Defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part; and Dixon's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied as moot.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Dixon's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied as moot, because the court is granting leave to amend as specified in this memorandum and accompanying order.”

Wishard v. Waynesboro Area School District
· 2020-08-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the district's motion for summary judgment is granted and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied. An appropriate order follows.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Snead v. Steif
· 2021-07-06
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Based on the above, Snead has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable inmate of ordinary firmness in the same situation would have failed to file administrative remedies against the Government Defendants. Accordingly, the Government Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor based on Snead's failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies as to the claims asserted against them.”

Ober v. Ocwen Financial Corp.
· 2020-04-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted and Plaintiffs' complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. An appropriate order will issue.”

Mumma v. Double M Development
· 2020-04-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss are granted. An appropriate order follows.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median motion-to-ruling time: 207 days (N = 9).

The sample spans employment civil-rights, special-education, wage-and-hour, insurance, and habeas matters. Several case histories contained no substantive entries beyond basic metadata, and one collective action remained in pre-certification discovery, leaving only one classifiable dispositive ruling in this narrow window.

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 months5
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years18
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 2026518
Sep 2025323
Mar 20251117
Sep 2024119
Mar 2024120
Sep 2023917
Mar 20231520
Sep 20221024
Mar 20225228
Sep 20212232
Mar 20211327
Sep 2020322

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 Middle District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Wilson: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed1,5908.5 months
Closed with no court action6606 months
Closed before pretrial90110.6 months
Closed during or after pretrial2139.8 months
Closed during trial8not reported
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20251,5908.5 months
Sep 20241,5358.7 months
Sep 20231,37011 months
Sep 20221,55012.7 months
Sep 20211,4209.4 months
Sep 20201,41010.6 months
Sep 20191,61111 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 Wilson with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wilson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Wilson's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace