Chatton v. Back et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TOMMIE RAY CHATTON, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-212
§
J. BACK, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Tommie Ray Chatton, an inmate currently confined at the Wayne Scott Unit with
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple
Defendants.
On November 14, 2025, Magistrate Judge Christine Stetson entered an Order granting
Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Their Exhibit and Witness List Out of Time (#117). While
finding Defendants’ reasoning for the late filing inadequate, Magistrate Judge Stetson ultimately
found that there was no prejudice to Plaintiff as the witnesses and exhibits had been previously
disclosed to Plaintiff in Defendants’ initial and supplemental disclosures. Plaintiff filed Objections
to the Order on December 8, 2025 (#118).
Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a magistrate judge to hear and
decide nondispositive motions. If a party wishes to object to a magistrate judge’s order, he may
do so within 14 days and the district court will review the magistrate judge’s order under a clearly
erroneous or contrary to law standard. Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district court
may reconsider any pretrial matter under subparagraph (1) where it has been shown that the
Case 1:23-cv-00212-MAC-CLS Document 119 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As the Magistrate Judge Oder
granting Defendants’ motion to file their exhibit and witness lists out of time is a nondispositive
matter, the appropriate analysis is under Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
A review of the pleadings and Order in this case reveal no clear error. As outlined in the
Order of the Magistrate Judge, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate requests for an
extension of time for good cause made after the time has expired. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1). Any
such determination is within the discretion of the court after considering the relevant factors.
McCarty v. Thaler, 376 F. App’x 442, 443 (5th Cir. 2010). And, while, Plaintiff argues the
Defendants acted in bad faith, any such argument is not supported by the record. The record
reflects that the Defendants made their initial disclosures on October 16, 2023, (#20) and
supplemental disclosures on May 30, 2025 (#92). Both were mailed to Plaintiff at the Gib Lewis
Unit where Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time as evidenced by correspondence mailed by
Plaintiff around that same time (#21 & #93). There is nothing in the record to suggest that
Plaintiff did not receive these disclosures. Any recent mistake by Defendants in mailing
correspondence to Plaintiff at the wrong unit does not equate to bad faith.
As explained by the Magistrate Judge, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff as the witnesses and
exhibits have been previously disclosed to Plaintiff. The length of delay is minimal (13 days) and
there is no delay in judicial proceedings as Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently
pending. The court, like the Magistrate Judge, admonishes the Defendants that timely notices of
change of counsel and adequate calendaring are required.
Based on the foregoing, the Order of the Magistrate Judge (#117) is neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections, liberally
2
Case 1:23-cv-00212-MAC-CLS Document 119 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

construed as a Motion for Reconsideration (#118), is DENIED. Defendants are admonished to
update their records to reflect the current address for Plaintiff.
3
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 29th day of December, 2025.
Case 1:23-cv-00212-MAC-CLS Document 119 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>