Jason A. Robertson
How Judge Robertson rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Robertson
Jason A. Robertson has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma since 2022, sitting in Muskogee. Before joining the bench, he worked as an assistant public defender and in private practice. He earned degrees from Northeastern State University and Oklahoma City University School of Law.
Judge Robertson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Robertson, 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.
- Joint Status Report ↗
- Pretrial Order Instructions ↗
- Sample Pretrial Order ↗
- Sample Scheduling Order ↗
- AI Guidelines for all Criminal and Civil Cases ↗
- Consent Form After Referral ↗
- Rule 73 ↗
- Trial and Hearing Rules ↗
- Requests for Extension of Time and Extension of Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Human verification of cited authorities is required even when technology assists drafting.
“A reasonable inquiry requires human verification of cited authority.”
Motions
File extension requests in writing before the deadline absent an emergency.
“Absent an emergency, any request for extension should be filed BEFORE the scheduled deadline;”
Discovery
If initial Rule 26 disclosures have not been exchanged and filed, the joint status report form requires that within 10 days after the report.
“the parties shall exchange and file their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures within 10 days of the entry of this Joint Status Report.”
Conferences
A Rule 73 conference is scheduled in all assigned civil cases, usually early in case management.
“a Rule 73 Conference is scheduled in all civil cases assigned to Judge Robertson, typically during early case management.”
Trial
Under the sample scheduling order, object to an expert’s reliability under Evidence Rule 702 by motion that identifies the basis and challenged testimony.
“Any objection to the reliability of an expert’s proposed testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall be made by motion, specifically stating the basis for the objection and identifying the objectionable testimony”
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 Robertson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Buckner v. City of Sallisaw, Robertson denied qualified immunity on the alleged excessive-force claim at the pleading stage pending development of the facts.
“At least insofar as an excessive force claim is alleged, both of these elements are met. Qualified immunity will be denied at this time until further facts surrounding the force employed is developed.”
In a Social Security appeal, Robertson found that the ALJ overlooked medical opinions consistent with Dr. Cook’s mental-impairment assessment while selecting evidence supporting a finding of nondisability.
“the ALJ blatantly disregarded the consistency of Dr. Cook's opinion with the other medical opinions in respect to Claimant's mental impairments. Instead, the ALJ picked evidence from each opinion that supported a finding of non-disability.”
In Mauldin v. Wormuth, he found no evidence that the interviewers held discriminatory attitudes and noted the plaintiff’s concession that every panelist gave her the lowest score.
“She proffers no evidence that any of the interviewers held discriminatory attitudes or participated in past discrimination and concedes that she received the lowest interview score from each panelist.”
Procedural preferences
In Buckner v. City of Sallisaw, Robertson declined the defendants' request to consider dash camera and body camera videos on their Rule 12(b)(6) motions. He treated the recordings as evidence outside the pleadings that could not be considered without converting the motions to summary judgment.
“This Court, however, does not find that the videos are the type of exhibits which are typically considered in connection with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”
In a dispute over Dallas Ewton’s discovery responses, Robertson struck the responses to requests for admission and deemed the matters admitted after a hearing.
“Defendant Dallas Ewton's counsel requested that the responses to the Requests for Admissions be stricken and deemed admitted. Following the hearing, this Court granted counsel's request and entered an Order striking Defendant Dallas Ewton's responses to the Requests for Admissions and deemed them admitted.”
In 777 Holdings v. Fraze, Robertson remanded because Fraze had not shown he was no longer an LLC member at the relevant filing date or established the citizenship of every remaining member. Fraze therefore had not carried his burden to establish diversity jurisdiction.
“Fraze has not carried his burden to prove either that he was no longer a member on July 17, 2025, or, alternatively, the citizenship of each remaining member as of that date.”
Cautions
In a Social Security appeal, Robertson noted that the claimant’s brief lacked administrative-record citations, limiting its usefulness.
“This Court would first point out that Claimant's brief lacks any citations to the administrative record and is limited in its usefulness in its brevity.”
A nonlawyer cannot file a response for another person; the court struck such a response and required the defendant to sign his own pleading or retain counsel.
“the pleading must be stricken. Defendant Richards will be given the opportunity – a final one – to answer or otherwise plead in this action either by signing a pleading and acting pro se in this action or by having a licensed attorney sign on his behalf.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Tyler Dallas Ewton filed July 20, 2022 (Docket Entry # 49) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, judgment is entered against Defendant Tyler Dallas Ewton and in favor of Plaintiff on Plaintiff's claims for (1) violation of P.D.'s Fourteenth Amendment rights as enforced through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, (2) assault and battery, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress in an amount to be determined.”
“it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the Commissioner's [decision] be REVERSED and the case REMANDED with instructions for Defendant to award benefits.”
“Therefore, the Magistrate Judge finds for the above and foregoing reasons, the ruling of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration should be and is AFFIRMED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Houston Murray's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry #16) is hereby GRANTED, in part, in that the Section 1981 claim, Section 1983 official capacity claim, and any asserted state law claims are hereby DISMISSED. The remainder of the Motion is hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Sallisaw's and Terry Franklin's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry #17) is hereby GRANTED, in part, in that the Section 1983 official capacity claim against Franklin, any asserted state law claims, any declaratory or injunctive relief, and the claim for punitive damages are hereby DISMISSED. The remainder of the Motion is hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Houston Murray's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry #66) is hereby GRANTED. Murray is entitled to qualified immunity for the reasons stated herein.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Sallisaw's and Terry Franklin's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry #67) is hereby GRANTED.”
“IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS COURT that Defendant's First Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Docket Entry #30) ... be DENIED.”
“IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS COURT that ... Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Docket Entry #31) be DENIED.”
“Therefore, this Court finds, in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g), the ruling of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should be and is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order.”
“Therefore, this Court finds, in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g), the ruling of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration should be and is AFFIRMED.”
“WHEREFORE, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Army [Doc. 73], is hereby GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Oklahoma Corporation Commission's Motion to Dismiss Under the Eleventh Amendment, for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Docket Entry #49) is hereby GRANTED. Defendant Oklahoma Corporation Commission is hereby DISMISSED from this action.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of Defendants Daniel and Danielle Flener to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim Against Them as Moot (Docket Entry #56) is hereby GRANTED. Defendants Daniel and Danielle Flener are hereby DISMISSED from this action.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants A & A Tank Truck Co. and Omni Environmental Solutions Inc.'s Motion to Stay or Dismiss Case, or to Transfer Case to Western District of Louisiana to Determine First-to-File Issues (Docket Entry #27) is hereby GRANTED, in part, in that this case is hereby STAYED to allow the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to proceed to definitively determine the application of the first-to-file rule. ... The remaining alternative relief requested in the Motion -- dismissal and to transfer the case -- is hereby DENIED.”
“WHEREFORE, the motion for summary judgment [Doc. 121] filed on behalf of defendant LeFlore County Sheriff is hereby DENIED.”
“WHEREFORE, the motion for summary judgment [Doc. 185] of Defendants Jerry Chrisman and Tommy Sharp is hereby GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The caseload sample is dominated by consent Social Security disability appeals, along with civil-rights and prisoner suits, removed contract and insurance disputes, and a smaller group of referred federal criminal matters involving suppression and dismissal requests.
- Many sampled cases are consent civil matters in which Robertson enters final judgment and, when required, presides over jury trials.
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 | 34 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 13 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 34 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 8 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 21 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 12 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 15 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, not for Judge Robertson: 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 | 329 | 7.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 12 | 2.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 309 | 7.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 3 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 5 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 329 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 375 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 327 | 13.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 290 | 15.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 326 | 13 months |
| Sep 2020 | 325 | 12.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 370 | 11.8 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 Robertson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Robertson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Robertson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace