Stephen C. Dries
How Judge Dries rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dries
Stephen C. Dries has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin since April 2020. He previously served as the court’s clerk, taking that post in May 2017.
Judge Dries's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Dries, 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
Contacting chambers
Use Judge Dries’s proposed-order email only for proposed orders; avoid other ex parte correspondence.
“This email box is for proposed orders only. Please do not send any ex parte communications to the court unless they relate to a proposed order or a pre-mediation statement.”
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 Dries decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Asukwo v. Nantomah, he granted an unopposed summary-judgment motion in part and denied it in part after reviewing whether the record supported each claim against each defendant.
“the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 14.”
In Yauch v. Schuette, Dries granted summary judgment for a prison nurse on an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim. He found the plaintiff's red, itchy rash was not objectively serious and that arranging the next available appointment did not show deliberate indifference; the Constitution did not require immediate care in that case.
“the Constitution does not mandate immediate care.”
In Thompson v. Feltes, Dries denied the defendants' partial summary-judgment motion on exhaustion grounds. He found that the grievance concerned an ongoing refusal to process a disbursement request and that the examiner's improper rejection of the complaint made the administrative remedy unavailable to Thompson.
“By improperly rejecting Thompson's properly filed inmate complaint, the institution complaint examiner rendered the administrative remedies unavailable to Thompson.”
In Bridges v. City of Milwaukee, he denied the plaintiff's partial summary-judgment motion because the record left a factual dispute about whether she could perform the job's essential functions remotely or from a private workspace.
“whether the essential functions of Bridges' position could be performed with her requested accommodation is a question of fact left unresolved by the present record.”
In the Windsors’ insurance case, Dries dismissed additional living expense claims without prejudice after finding the insurer had not yet denied the claim and the policyholders’ breach and bad faith theories were premature.
“the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and bad faith are premature, at best.”
Procedural preferences
In Huss v. Woelfel, Dries treated the defendants' summary-judgment motions as unopposed after the self-represented plaintiff filed a declaration instead of responding to their proposed facts and arguments, despite a prior warning and extensions. Dries also reviewed the undisputed facts and video evidence before granting the motions.
“Huss does not satisfy his obligations by simply filing a declaration with his version of the facts.”
In King v. State of Wisconsin, the parties consented to Dries deciding the mandamus case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). He entered a final order granting the state respondents' motion to dismiss the petition.
“These respondents and King have consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b).”
In Cecot v. Zielinski, returned mail and repeated missed contacts led Dries to dismiss the case with prejudice after the plaintiff failed to respond to discovery.
“Usually, the court would give Cecot one final opportunity to either respond to discovery or file a letter explaining why he cannot. However, the court notes that it has tried to mail Cecot several filings and they were returned.”
At summary judgment in one age-discrimination case, the judge required evidence from which a jury could find that age or complaints about age bias caused the adverse action.
“Burks has failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Care Management Plus discriminated against her because of her age or for complaining about age- related discrimination.”
In Okozube’s ADA case, Dries dismissed the parent company because the complaint grouped three corporations together without saying which one carried out the alleged acts.
“referring to three separate corporations as ‘Defendants’ does not tell me which corporation took each action.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court GRANTS the respondents' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10. Marisabel Cabrera, Johnathan Richards, Thomas Hasle, Kevin Clancy, and Colleen Cullen are DISMISSED as respondents in this action.”
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 36 & 41) are GRANTED; and this case is DISMISSED.”
“the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 29) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.”
“the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 14.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on exhaustion grounds (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED.”
“the court DENIES the plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 27.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Zielinski’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the court DENIES the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff ’s complaint, ECF No. 6.”
“the court GRANTS the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 30.”
“The court therefore GRANTS the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF No. 8.”
“I therefore AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision.”
“GRANTS Pfizer’s motion to dismiss the second”
“The motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 45, is DENIED as moot,”
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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 Eastern District of Wisconsin, not for Judge Dries: 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 | 1,062 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 137 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 879 | 6.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 36 | 13.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 22.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,062 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 982 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,028 | 8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,065 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,134 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,184 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,253 | 6.9 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 Dries with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dries, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dries's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace