Nadia S. Medrano

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas magistrate 8 signed orders read

How Judge Medrano decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On a 12(b)(6) motion she will recommend dismissal where a pro se complaint pleads only sweeping conspiracy allegations that fail the pleading standard, and will separately reach a statute-of-limitations bar; she also recommends denying leave to amend when amendment would be futile.

“Judge Medrano made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendant Wells Fargo Bank’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 47), be granted ... Judge Medrano further recommended that this Court not grant Plaintiff leave to amend his claims against Wells Fargo Bank.”

Procedural preferences

She enforces the prerequisites for default judgment and declines to recommend it where service / procedural requirements are not met, even when a pro se plaintiff presses repeated default motions.

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 15), is DENIED; and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 17), is DENIED.”

Cautions

Medrano is a U.S. Magistrate Judge: every outcome here is a RECOMMENDED disposition in an M&R, not a final judgment. In this sample all 8 M&Rs were adopted in full by the district judge (Tipton x5, Crane x3) -- and four of them were adopted over the pro se plaintiff's filed objections after de novo review, a notably durable record -- but adoption is the district judge's act, not the magistrate's.

“The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made ... Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court.”

Motion outcomes

Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.

Motions to dismiss
N = 2
Granted: 2 counts only
Summary judgment
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion for immediate possession
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Habeas petition
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Default judgment
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for judgment as matter of law
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to certify complex litigation
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for return of property
N = 1
Moot / procedural: 1 counts only

A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.

Signed rulings

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

United States v. 2.859 Acres of Land
7:25-cv-00059 · 2025-07-30
Motion for immediate possession (plaintiff) Granted

“The Government’s Motion for Order of Immediate Possession, (Dkt. No. 63), is GRANTED”

Chay Jr. v. Montiel (default judgment)
7:23-cv-00206 · 2024-08-13
Default judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 15), is DENIED; and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 17), is DENIED.”

Chay Jr. v. Montiel (Cameron County MTD)
7:23-cv-00206 · 2025-01-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Cameron County’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 45), is GRANTED; and (2) Defendant Cameron County is DISMISSED from this civil action.”

Chay Jr. v. Montiel (Wells Fargo MTD)
7:23-cv-00206 · 2025-02-19
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Wells Fargo Bank’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 47), is GRANTED; and (2) Defendant Wells Fargo Bank is DISMISSED from this civil action.”

Chay Jr. v. Montiel (motion to certify as complex litigation)
7:23-cv-00206 · 2025-04-08
Motion to certify complex litigation (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s “Motion to Certify [the] Case as Complex Litigation,” (Dkt. No. 67), is DENIED.”

Edwards v. Lumpkin
7:20-cv-00038 · 2021-06-21
Summary judgment (respondent) Granted

“Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED, that Petitioner’s Motion for Judgment as Matter of Law should be DENIED, that a certificate of appealability should be DENIED, and that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be DISMISSED”

Motion for judgment as matter of law (petitioner) Denied

“Petitioner’s Motion for Judgment as Matter of Law should be DENIED”

Gonzalez-Davila v. Farley
7:19-cv-00025 · 2021-09-09
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be DISMISSED and that a certificate of appealability should be DENIED as unnecessary.”

Balderas v. Drug Enforcement Administration
7:07-mc-00074 · 2021-03-21
Motion for return of property (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“the “Petition for Return of Personal Property in U.S. Currencies” (Docket No. 1) should be DENIED and that this action should be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

McAllen Division referral magistrate. GovInfo/docket footprint spans 28 U.S.C. 2254 and 2241 habeas R&Rs, pro se civil-rights/RICO complaint M&Rs (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals, default-judgment denials, procedural motions), federal land-condemnation immediate-possession M&Rs, and Rule 41(g) property-return petitions. Not a complete caseload census.