Christopher A. dos Santos
How Judge Santos rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Santos
Christopher A. dos Santos has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Laredo Division of the Southern District of Texas since July 24, 2020. He earned a B.S. from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2005 and a J.D. from Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School in 2009. Before his appointment, he was a Marine Corps judge advocate and an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Laredo.
Judge Santos's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Santos's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Santos decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Grimes v. Fitts, dos Santos recommended summary judgment for a prison physician because the treatment record did not show deliberate indifference to the inmate's medical needs and the physician was entitled to qualified immunity.
“Unsuccessful medical care does not demonstrate deliberate indifference ... [Dr. Fitts] did not act with deliberate indifference to Grimes' serious medical needs ... Dr. Fitts is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment in his favor.”
In Joe Hand Promotions v. Asociados DJLS, dos Santos recommended default judgment after reviewing the pleaded signal-piracy claim, and recommended enhanced statutory damages and attorney fees he found reasonable in that case.
“the Undersigned recommends awarding triple the [statutory damages] ... the Undersigned finds that this rate is reasonable in this case”
Procedural preferences
In Gonzalez v. Trevino, Magistrate Judge dos Santos recommended dismissing a section 1983 claim against Trevino in his official capacity for lack of a pleaded county policy while allowing the individual-capacity claim to continue.
“Defendant Trevino's motion to dismiss claim two ... should be GRANTED regarding Defendant Trevino in his official capacity and DENIED regarding Defendant Trevino in his individual capacity”
Cautions
In Grimes v. Fitts, Magistrate Judge dos Santos recommended summary judgment against a prisoner’s retaliation claim because the record lacked evidence of motive or a chronology supporting causation; the district judge adopted the disposition with modified reasoning.
“Mere conclusory allegations of retaliation will not withstand [summary judgment] ... [the inmate must] produce direct evidence of motivation or a chronology of events from which retaliation [may be inferred]”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Undersigned recommends Defendants' summary judgment motion, (Dkt. No. 116), be GRANTED in its entirety. The summary judgment evidence establishes that Grimes' claims against Dr. Fitts and Warden Marshall are subject to dismissal, and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. [Adopted: 'the Court ADOPTS IN PART and MODIFIES IN PART the Report (Dkt. No. 138). Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 116) is GRANTED.' -- Marina Garcia Marmolejo, 2024-05-21, USCOURTS-txsd-5_22-cv-00012-2.pdf]”
“The Undersigned further recommends Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 131), be DENIED. [Adopted: 'Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 131) is DENIED.' -- Marina Garcia Marmolejo, 2024-05-21]”
“On October 12, 2023, Judge dos Santos issued the report and recommendation on Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 18) recommending that the motion for final default judgment be granted ... Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for final default judgment (Dkt. No. 16) is hereby GRANTED. [adopted Marina Garcia Marmolejo, 2023-11-07]”
“In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff's IFP application and allowing Plaintiff sixty days to pay the filing fee. ... The Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED IN WHOLE. Therefore, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2), is DENIED, and Plaintiff has sixty (60) days to pay the filing fee. [adopted Diana Saldana, 2026-02-06]”
“the Undersigned recommends the United States' motion for default judgment and entry of final order of forfeiture be GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 14). The Undersigned further recommends the Defendant firearm ... be ORDERED forfeited and all right, title, and interest in the Defendant firearm immediately vest in the United States.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Undersigned recommends Plaintiff's motion for default judgment be GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 11). ... the Undersigned recommends awarding triple the [statutory damages] ... the Undersigned recommends awarding attorney fees in the [requested] amount”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Undersigned recommends Petitioner's motion for leave to file notice of appeal, (Dkt. No. 48), should be DENIED.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant Trevino's motion to dismiss regarding claim one, Dkt No. 72, should be DENIED, that Defendant Trevino's motion to dismiss claim two, Dkt No. 72, should be GRANTED regarding Defendant Trevino in his official capacity and DENIED regarding Defendant Trevino in his individual capacity, and that Defendants' motions to dismiss claim three, Dkt. Nos. 71 and 72, should be GRANTED.”
“Judge dos Santos recommends that the Court grant the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses with respect to Requests for Admission numbers 33 and 34, and Requests for Production numbers 8, 22, 46, 49, 57, 58, and 59. (Id. at 12). Judge dos Santos further recommends that the Court deny Defendants’ motion with respect to Requests for Admission numbers 14 and 15. (Id.). Finally, Judge dos Santos recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion as modified in the recommendation with respect to Request for Production number 1. ... the Court hereby ADOPTS IN WHOLE the report and recommendation. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses, (Dkt. No. 10), with respect to Requests for Admission numbers 33 and 34, and Requests for Production numbers 8, 22, 46, 49, 57, 58, and 59 is GRANTED and the Defendants’ motion with respect to Requests for Admission numbers 14 and 15 is DENIED. The Court GRANTS AS MODIFIED Defendants’ motion with respect to executing the authorization referenced in Request for Production number 1.”
“Judge dos Santos recommends: (1) dismissing the writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction ... Having considered the entire record, the Court overrules Defendant’s objections and hereby ADOPTS IN WHOLE Judge dos Santos’s report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 10). Accordingly, Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling (Dkt. No. 1).”
“Judge dos Santos recommends: ... (2) dismissing the writ of mandamus with prejudice because Petitioner failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted ... Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Dkt. No. 1 at 5).”
“Judge dos Santos recommends: ... (3) denying Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, as appointment of counsel is not necessary in the interests of justice ... Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED (Dkt. No. 5).”
“The Undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Required Parties. (Dkt. No. 7).”
“The Undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens. (Dkt. No. 9).”
“the Undersigned RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 24), as to Plaintiff’s claims for damages be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ... the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff be awarded $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages against Defendant Rodriguez. The Undersigned further RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff be awarded $402 in court filing fees. ... As for Plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses other than the court filing fee in this case, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that these requests be DENIED in their entirety.”
“Accordingly, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that Mr. Jimenez’s motion to appear pro hac vice, (Dkt. No. 35), 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 | 1 |
| 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 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, not for Judge Santos: 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 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 2,442 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,371 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 871 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 58 | 31.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 5,086 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 4,762 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 4,595 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,745 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 5,009 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,233 | 7.5 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 Santos with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Santos, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Santos's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace