Marcia A. Crone

How Judge Crone rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Position
District judge
Appointed by
George W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
October 3, 2003
Education
University of Texas at Austin, B.A., 1973; University of Houston Law Center, J.D., 1978
Signed orders read
16

About Judge Crone

Marcia A. Crone is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Crone received a commission on October 3, 2003.

Judge Crone's practices and standing orders

Rules for cases before Judge Crone, 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

Direct case related telephone inquiries to the court administrator, not the judge or law clerks.

“Case-related telephone inquiries should be made to the court administrator only, not to the law clerks or to the judge.”

Filing

A filing prepared with generative AI needs a certificate disclosing its use and verifying the AI assisted content.

“The certificate must disclose the use of AI and certify that the party has independently verified the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool.”

Filing

Ask Crone for an answer deadline extension by motion, not an application to the clerk.

“Counsel may, by motion, request that the deadline be extended for a defendant to answer the complaint or file a motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b). (c) No requests for extensions of deadlines may be made by application to the clerk.”

Motions

A dispositive-motion brief over ten pages of argument must contain all items listed in Crone’s summary-judgment order.

“Any brief or memorandum that has more than ten (10) pages of argument must contain all the following items listed:”

Discovery

Raise ordinary discovery disputes by written motion and allow the other party to respond.

“In general, discovery disputes should be raised with the court by written motion, and the opposing party should file a response.”

Conferences

Submit a proposed scheduling order with the joint Rule 26(f) report using business day deadlines.

“the parties should attempt to agree on deadlines for completion of pretrial matters and submit a proposed scheduling order with the joint conference report, using deadlines that are business days consistent with the bolded instructions on the sample scheduling order form.”

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Hesseltine v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
1:03-cv-00865 · 2005-08-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Goodyear's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Plaintiffs Hesseltine, Day, and Parrish have failed to present a claim that warrants relief. There remain no material facts in dispute, and Goodyear is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' claims for overtime compensation under the FLSA.”

Darby v. Shults
1:20-cv-00317 · 2022-05-24
Motion to alter or amend judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) (#14) is DENIED”

Motion for relief from judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) (#13) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reinstate the above-styled action on the court's active docket.”

Finney v. Collier
1:19-cv-00159 · 2023-02-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the report of the magistrate judge (#46) is ADOPTED. The motion to dismiss (#39) is GRANTED. A final judgment shall be entered dismissing this lawsuit.”

Crawford v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
9:20-cv-00020 · 2023-03-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Plaintiff's affidavit and exhibits still fail to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to deliberate indifference ... As Plaintiff has failed to establish a constitutional violation, Defendant Harden's entitlement to qualified immunity remains intact. Plaintiff's objections are overruled.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“As these new claims do not relate to the same transaction or occurrence, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint is denied. Plaintiff is free to file a separate civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendant Garrett.”

Motion to appoint counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's seventh motion now pending before this court is denied for the same reasons. Although Plaintiff is undergoing mental health treatment, Plaintiff has adequately pleaded his case ... Plaintiff has not been hindered by the lack of appointed counsel.”

McGuire v. Woodward
1:20-cv-00193 · 2023-08-03
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the objections filed by plaintiff in this matter (#61) are OVERRULED. ... the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. The motion to dismiss (#49) is GRANTED. A final judgment shall be entered dismissing this lawsuit.”

Hall v. Puntes
9:23-cv-00012 · 2024-03-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#13) is GRANTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge's recommendation.”

Adams v. State of Texas
9:25-cv-00132 · 2026-03-16
Default judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#30) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Second Motion for Default Judgment (#21) is DENIED.”

Moseley v. Preston
9:25-cv-00188-MAC-ZJH · 2026-05-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#63) is ADOPTED. The motion to dismiss (#50) is DENIED.”

United States v. St. Andre
1:22-cr-00099-MAC-ZJH · 2026-05-14
Habeas corpus 2241 (defendant) Moot / procedural

“In accordance with the foregoing analysis, St. Andre’s pro se letter motion (#273) is DISMISSED without prejudice.”

United States v. Bendy
1:24-cr-00109-MAC-CLS · 2026-04-17
Motion to dismiss indictment (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, Bendy has failed to show that either dismissal of the Indictment or that a new trial is warranted. Bendy’s pro se Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (#446) and Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33 (#447) are DENIED.”

Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied
United States v. Cezar
1:25-cr-00055-3-MAC · 2026-07-06

The court ORDERS that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. This routine plea adoption did not resolve a party motion and is excluded from the motion statistics.

Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed v. United States of America
1:23-cv-00354-MAC-CLS · 2026-08-29
Motion to vacate 2255 (petitioner) Denied

“The magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended denying and dismissing the Motion. ... Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (#17) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.”

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 months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years0
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 202600
Sep 202500
Mar 202500
Sep 202400
Mar 202400
Sep 202300
Mar 202300
Sep 202200
Mar 202200
Sep 202102
Mar 202102
Sep 202001

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 Eastern District of Texas, not for Judge Crone: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed2,8547.3 months
Closed with no court action1,2225.3 months
Closed before pretrial1,5819 months
Closed during or after pretrial1526 months
Closed during trial3624.2 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20252,8547.3 months
Sep 20242,3457.5 months
Sep 20232,0038.4 months
Sep 20221,9688.8 months
Sep 20212,1228.1 months
Sep 20201,9568.9 months
Sep 20191,9728.6 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 Crone with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Crone, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Crone's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace