Susan E. Schwab
How Judge Schwab rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Schwab
Susan E. Schwab has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania since November 2012 and was reappointed in 2020. Before joining the court, she held senior legal and administrative positions in Pennsylvania state government and practiced law in Harrisburg. She earned her law degree from Widener University School of Law.
Judge Schwab's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Schwab, 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
Courtesy copies are unnecessary.
“the submission of courtesy copies to chambers is no longer necessary.”
Motions
Request an extension of a case management deadline by timely motion showing unusual circumstances.
“dates and deadlines normally will not be subject to extensions, once in place, unless unusual circumstances are presented and a timely motion is made.”
Discovery
Raise a discovery dispute by docketed written correspondence instead of a formal motion.
“Discovery disputes, which should be raised by written correspondence filed to the docket in the subject case in lieu of a formal motion practice.”
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 Schwab decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Fewell’s Social Security appeal, Schwab recommended remand because the ALJ’s later discussion of headaches did not address several factors relevant to medical equivalence with Listing 11.02.
“We agree that the ALJ did not need to include more in his step three analysis. We disagree, however, with the position that the ALJ's discussion about Fewell's headaches later in the decision was sufficient ... the ALJ does not include an analysis of many of the factors associated with Listing 11.02.”
In Trevizo v. Del Toro, Schwab considered the totality of the alleged incidents when evaluating the hostile-work-environment claim.
“pervasive means not just episodic, but sufficiently continuous and concerted ... we consider the totality of the circumstances and the entire scenario regarding Trevizo's work environment.”
In Tufano’s diversity case, Schwab recommended dismissal with leave to amend because the complaint gave addresses but did not identify the citizenship of the plaintiff or any defendant.
“Here, Tufano has not alleged in his complaint either his citizenship or the citizenship of any of the defendants.”
Procedural preferences
In Papapietro v. Bank of New York Mellon, Schwab allowed amendment only for a RESPA claim based on the mortgage assignment to U.S. Bank because the other proposed claims were time barred or precluded.
“With the possible exception of a RESPA claim against Bank of New York Mellon ... we will grant Papapietro leave to amend but only as to a RESPA claim against Bank of New York Mellon based on the assignment to U.S. Bank.”
In her posted case-management preferences, Schwab says she intends, whenever possible, to set a date certain for jury selection in the initial case-management order.
“Whenever possible, I intend to set a date certain for jury selection in the initial case management order.”
In Ivy v. Williamsport Bureau of Police, Schwab recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute after giving Ivy two opportunities to respond, serving the second notice under both recorded spellings of his name, and weighing the Poulis factors.
“in an abundance of caution, we gave Ivy one final opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed ... we directed the Clerk of Court to serve the show cause order on Ivy under both the name Jabril Ivy and Jubril Ivy.”
Cautions
In Salsman v. Adams, Schwab denied habeas relief over rescission of an unexecuted parole grant. She found that the petitioner’s speculation about the prosecutor’s negative recommendation did not show that the Parole Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
“his claims do not rise above a speculative level ... it is not evidence that the Parole Board's decision was arbitrary or capricious.”
In Trevizo v. Del Toro, Schwab dismissed an amended hostile-work-environment complaint after finding that it either left previously identified defects unaddressed or added only superficial detail. Because the plaintiff had already received a chance to amend, Schwab found further amendment futile.
“The allegations in the amended complaint either do not address the deficiencies at all or present only superficial amendments ... we conclude that further leave to amend would be futile.”
In one prisoner civil-rights screening recommendation, the magistrate judge declined another chance to amend after the plaintiff had amended once and the claims remained barred by prosecutorial immunity or failed to state a claim.
“Granting Williams further leave to amend would be futile.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be GRANTED.”
“we recommend that Wright's complaint be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We further recommend that Wright be given leave to file an amended complaint.”
“upon consideration of Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand, and any response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is GRANTED, and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.”
“we recommend that the court grant Judge Vedder's motion to dismiss (doc. 12)”
“we recommend that the court grant ... Attorney Hoke's motion to dismiss (doc. 28) ... We conclude that amendment of the Complaint would be futile.”
“We also recommend that the court deny Attorney Spurlin's motion to dismiss (doc. 13) and Attorney Fernandez, Kermit, Raymond, and Finkel & Fernandez's motion to dismiss (doc. 11).”
“it is recommended that the court dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is also recommended that the court give Tufano leave to file an amended complaint to attempt to plead subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“Because this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, we recommend that the court remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County.”
“we will grant the pending motions to dismiss. Docs. 15, 22, 39, 48, 65. We will also grant Papapietro limited leave to amend.”
“we recommend that the court vacate the decision of the Commissioner and remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).”
“we recommend that the Court dismiss Buckner's second amended complaint without granting her leave to amend.”
“it is recommended that the court dismiss this action in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and that the court dismiss as moot the pending motions (docs. 16, 36) to dismiss the complaint.”
“we will further recommend that the court dismiss the pending motions to dismiss as moot.”
“we will deny Petitioner Salsman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and we will deny a certificate of appealability.”
“we recommend that the court grant Lackawanna County's motion to dismiss (doc. 12)”
“we recommend denying the City Defendants' motion to dismiss insofar as it seeks dismissal of Combs's illegal search, false imprisonment, fabrication of evidence, and state law claims against Petrucci and Hyler ... we recommend granting the motion to dismiss insofar as it seeks the dismissal of Combs's false arrest, malicious prosecution, Brady, First Amendment, and Fifth Amendment claims”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Her enumerated caseload (2021 and 2023 filing-year cohorts) is a broad general civil docket: Social Security disability appeals (NOS 863/864/865), section 1983 prisoner and non-prisoner civil-rights suits, motor-vehicle and insurance diversity cases, employment discrimination (Title VII, ADA, ADEA), ERISA benefit-fund collections, and occasional criminal-magistrate matters (detention hearings, misdemeanor proceedings).
- Many general civil cases resolve by settlement (e.g. Moyer v. Weiner Iron and Metal, dismissed without costs after a settlement conference before a different magistrate judge) rather than a contested ruling.
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 | 2 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 4 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 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 Middle District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Schwab: 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 | 1,590 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 660 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 901 | 10.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 21 | 39.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,590 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,535 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,370 | 11 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,550 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,420 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,410 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,611 | 11 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 Schwab with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schwab, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Schwab's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace