Peter Bray
How Judge Bray rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bray
Peter Bray has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas since August 3, 2018. He earned a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the Rochester Institute of Technology in 1992 and a J.D. from the University of Houston Law Center in 2000. Before joining the bench, he was an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Houston and clerked for U.S. District Judge Sim Lake.
Judge Bray's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Bray's own (checked October 8, 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 8, 2026).
How Judge Bray decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Kevin C.'s Social Security appeal, Bray recommended remand because the ALJ had not explained how he weighed Le's medical opinion, leaving the court unable to review the disability decision.
“Because the ALJ did not engage in the analysis required by the regulations, the court cannot engage in the required review of the ALJ’s decision.”
Procedural preferences
In Sweeney, Bray recommended denying the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, granting the defendant's motion, and dismissing the case without prejudice; the district judge overruled objections and adopted the recommendation.
“On July 24, 2023, Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that the court deny Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment ... Plaintiffs filed objections. ... Plaintiffs' objections are overruled.”
In a removed injury case involving offshore work and a Jones Act claim, Bray recommended separating the claims: the Jones Act claim returned to state court while the offshore claims remained in federal court. The district judge adopted that recommendation.
“The statute expressly requires that the Jones Act claims be severed and remanded to state court.”
Cautions
In Rivera's insurance case, Bray recommended summary judgment for AmGuard after finding no genuine issue of material fact on Rivera's claims. The district judge adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice.
“The summary judgment record does not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to any of Rivera’s claims and AmGuard has shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
In Carmona, he declined to exclude an engineering expert solely because the witness lacked a Texas engineering license; he treated admissibility in court separately from professional licensing.
“Rather than regulate the use of evidence in courts, TEPA regulates the practice of Engineering”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be granted, that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment be denied, and that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings. (D.E. 12.) No objections were filed. ... the court hereby ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation as this court's opinion.”
“Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that ... the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment be denied, and that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings.”
“Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that the court grant Defendant AmGuard Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 29. ... No objections were filed. The court has reviewed the recommendation de novo and finds no error in law or fact. The court therefore ADOPTS the memorandum and recommendation ... This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that the court deny Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismiss the case without prejudice. (D.E. No. 69.) Plaintiffs filed objections. (D.E. 70.) Plaintiffs' objections are overruled. ... the court hereby ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation as this court's opinion.”
“Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that the court deny Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismiss the case without prejudice.”
“Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that the court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial. ECF No. 64. ... No objections were filed. The court ADOPTS the memorandum and recommendation as its memorandum and opinion.”
“Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that the court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial.”
“Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 13), be denied ... (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 13), is DENIED;”
“that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 16), be granted; and that Defendant's final decision be affirmed. ... (3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 16), is GRANTED; and (4) Defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED.”
“The court recommends that the Motion to Reopen be DENIED.”
“The court recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 30, be GRANTED. Dierlam’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 15, should be DENIED as MOOT.”
“The court recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 32, be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 17, be DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Supplemental Rule 7.1 Disclosure, and Motion for Judicial Notice of Public SEC Filings, ECF Nos. 23 and 24, are DENIED as MOOT.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 46, be GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Trial Setting is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the court recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 7, be DENIED.”
“The court recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Sever and Remand, ECF No. 16, be GRANTED in part.”
“The court recommends that the motion for relief under Rule 60(b), ECF No. 63, be DENIED.”
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Southern District of Texas, not for Judge Bray: 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 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 2,442 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,371 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 871 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 58 | 31.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 5,086 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 4,762 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 4,595 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,745 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 5,009 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,233 | 7.5 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 Bray with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bray, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bray's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace