William Shaw Stickman IV
How Judge IV decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On premises-liability summary judgment he does not let 'known or obvious' end the inquiry: under Restatement (Second) of Torts 343A a landowner can still be liable if it should have anticipated the harm despite the danger's obviousness, leaving a jury question.
“Thus, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sunbelt could have anticipated the harm to Neyman. The Court will deny Sunbelt's motion for summary judgment.”
He enforces contractual forum-selection clauses robustly, reading a broad clause to reach even claims against a non-signatory and dismissing on forum non conveniens.
“The claims of Plaintiff Angel Hernandez and opt-in plaintiffs Scott Bridgeman and Michael Hendrick are dismissed in their entirety for forum non conveniens.”
Procedural preferences
On a magistrate judge's Report & Recommendation he conducts a genuine de novo review and will adopt it over a party's objections when he independently reaches the same conclusions -- and will let claims proceed past summary judgment where the R&R's analysis holds up.
“The Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Dodge's thorough analysis and her legal conclusions. It has independently reached the same legal conclusions for the reasons expressed in her comprehensive Report and Recommendation.”
When he dismisses claims he distinguishes futile from curable defects: official-capacity claims are dismissed WITH prejudice as futile while other deficiencies are dismissed without prejudice with a dated leave-to-amend deadline.
“Plaintiff's official capacity claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as leave to amend would be futile”
Cautions
In post-Bruen Second Amendment challenges to felon-in-possession (922(g)(1)) prosecutions he sustains the statute as applied by focusing on the defendant's demonstrated dangerousness and the historical tradition of disarming dangerous persons -- a generalized Bruen/Range argument without engaging the defendant's specific record is unlikely to prevail.
“poses a danger of misusing firearms in a way that would endanger others”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 3 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Preliminary injunction N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Default judgment N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CEM-TIR's Motion to Dismiss the Claims of Plaintiffs Hernandez, Bridgeman, and Hendrick (ECF No. 123) is GRANTED. The claims of Plaintiff Angel Hernandez and opt-in plaintiffs Scott Bridgeman and Michael Hendrick are dismissed in their entirety for forum non conveniens.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Barnes's motion will be denied. An Order of Court will follow.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as follows: (1) Plaintiff's official capacity claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as leave to amend would be futile; (2) Plaintiff's claims against Zaken are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ... Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to the personal involvement of Coulehan, Parker, and Buzas”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on exhaustion grounds as to Plaintiff's claims arising from incidents on February 21, 2023, and March 14, 2023, and summary judgment will be entered in favor of Ingram and Fielders. The motion is further GRANTED in that partial summary judgment will be entered in favor of Davis as to Plaintiff's claims arising from June 16, 2023, only.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for (TRO) Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 29) is DENIED”
“his Motion for Default of Judgment for (TRO) Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 34) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“AND NOW, this 25th day of March 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 225) is DENIED.”
“Thus, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sunbelt could have anticipated the harm to Neyman. The Court will deny Sunbelt's motion for summary judgment.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Enumerated via assigned_judge='William Shaw Stickman IV', cases filed 2023 (a one-month slice). NOS mix: federal criminal (Pender), diversity contract (Qualitox v. Medair), FTCA / US-defendant (State Farm v. US, Whitten v. US), trademark (Wiley v. McMahon, ref. MJ Dodge), FMLA (Catterall v. PurePenn), FLSA (Peck v. Frontier), ADA (McMorland), and prisoner civil rights (Brown v. Blair County Prison, ref. MJ Kezia O.L. Taylor). STRONG ADR-settlement pattern: civil dockets are routinely referred to mediation (recurring neutral Carole Katz) and resolve by settlement rather than a contested dispositive ruling (e.g. Peck FLSA collective settled and was approved as a class action). Not tallied to a fixed N.