James Boone Baxter
How Judge Baxter rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Baxter
J. Boone Baxter is a United States Magistrate Judge in the Texarkana Division of the Eastern District of Texas. Appointed in 2021, he previously practiced intellectual property law and clerked in the Eastern District of Texas.
Judge Baxter's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Baxter, 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.
- Docket Control Order ↗
- Docket Control Order ↗
- Discovery Order ↗
- E-Discovery Order ↗
- Discovery Order ↗
- Protective Order ↗
- Protective Order ↗
Key rules
Discovery
For Baxter’s patent discovery model, confer before moving to enter it and highlight agreed changes outside the specified paragraphs.
“The parties are expected to meet and confer prior to moving the Court to enter a proposed Discovery Order based upon this model order. The underlined portions (in paragraphs 5 and 12) may be modified by the parties according to the needs of the case without alerting the Court. Any other modifications must be agreed and clearly emphasized in the motion to enter the proposed Discovery Order.”
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 Baxter decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On an inmate medical-care claim, disagreement with the treatment provided is not deliberate indifference: a plaintiff must show the treatment was so deficient as to amount to a refusal to treat. Plead facts of a complete denial, not a dispute over the chosen course.
“Disagreement about the recommended medical treatment is generally not sufficient to show deliberate indifference.”
Procedural preferences
In Monk v. Turn Key Medical, Baxter considered the jail officials’ summary-judgment motion on exhaustion and the medical defendants’ dismissal motion in one report. He recommended granting both and dismissing the action without prejudice; district-judge adoption is unverified.
“It is accordingly recommended that the motion for summary judgment of the Defendants Bennett, McGhee, Neal, and Ponder (Dkt. No. 37) and the motion to dismiss of the Defendants Ebey, Hillhouse, McFaul, Owenby, and Phipps (Dkt. No. 54) be granted and that the above-styled civil action be dismissed without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is accordingly recommended that the motion for summary judgment of the Defendants Bennett, McGhee, Neal, and Ponder (Dkt. No. 37) ... be granted and that the above-styled civil action be dismissed without prejudice.”
“the motion to dismiss of the Defendants Ebey, Hillhouse, McFaul, Owenby, and Phipps (Dkt. No. 54) be granted and that the above-styled civil action be dismissed without prejudice.”
In a criminal-duty Rule 11 guilty-plea proceeding, Baxter conducted the plea colloquy and recommended that the court accept the guilty plea, conditionally approve the plea agreement, and adjudge the defendant guilty of Count One under 21 U.S.C. 846 for conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance. District Judge Schroeder adopted the R&R in full and entered a judgment of guilty.
In a criminal-duty Rule 11 guilty-plea proceeding, Baxter recommended accepting the plea and adjudging the defendant guilty of Count One under 18 U.S.C. 2250(a) for failure to register under SORNA. District Judge Schroeder adopted the recommendation in full.
In a criminal-duty Rule 11 guilty-plea proceeding, Baxter recommended accepting the plea and adjudging the defendant guilty of Count One of the First Superseding Indictment under 21 U.S.C. 846 for drug-distribution conspiracy. District Judge Schroeder adopted the recommendation in full.
“recommending Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 32) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 33) be denied. ... ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 32) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 33) are DENIED.”
“The Court, having reviewed the relevant briefing, recommends the Rule 12(b)(1) motion be GRANTED and that Plaintiffs’ above-entitled and numbered cause of action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“The Magistrate Judge recommends the motion be denied. ... ORDERED that Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Docket No. 7) is DENIED.”
“RECOMMENDED that Fourth-Party Defendant Nivel Parts & Manufacturing Co., LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Supporting Brief (Dkt. No. 64) be DENIED.”
“It is accordingly recommended the Defendants’ second amended motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 105) be denied.”
“the Magistrate Judge recommended that FNBO’s motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice to refiling and that Plaintiff be given leave to file a second amended complaint with sufficient allegations to state a claim against Defendants. ... ORDERED that Defendant FNBO’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docket No. 24) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING.”
“It is accordingly recommended that the Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docket Nos. 7, 9), and his motion to compel the Court to act on his motions for injunctive relief (Docket No. 12) be denied.”
“the undersigned concludes the amount in controversy requirement is met, diversity jurisdiction is established, and removal is proper, and therefore, recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand. ... RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Brief in Support of Motion (Dkt. No. 6) 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 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 Texas, not for Judge Baxter: 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 | 2,854 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,222 | 5.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,581 | 9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 15 | 26 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,854 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,345 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,003 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,968 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,122 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,956 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,972 | 8.6 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 Baxter with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Baxter, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Baxter's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace