IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

ALFRED C. DIZON, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-00040-O-BP

 §

VECTRUS SYSTEMS CORPORATION, §

 §

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff Alfred Dizon’s (“Dizon”) Motions [sic] to File Supplemental 

Petition (ECF No. 35) filed January 9, 2023. In the Motion, Dizon purports to add a defamation 

claim to his preexisting claims of employment discrimination and retaliation. Id. He also attempts 

to further articulate the damages that he seeks. Id. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) governs supplemental pleadings and provides that: 

On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a 

supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after 

the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit supplementation even 

though the original pleading is defective in stating a claim or defense. The court may order 

that the opposing party plead to the supplemental pleading within a specified time.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Dizon failed to separately seek leave to file his supplemental petition with 

the Court. Additionally, he filed the petition 126 days after the Court’s deadline for filing a motion 

to amend pleadings and six months before the case was set for trial. ECF No. 10. Moreover, to the 

extent that the Court liberally construes the Motion as a request to file a supplement to his 

complaint, Dizon has not asserted that the defamation cause of action arose after the filing of his 

initial complaint. ECF No. 35. Accordingly, the supplemental complaint would not be proper under 

Rule 15(d).

Case 7:22-cv-00040-O-BP Document 55 Filed 04/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 634
2

The Fifth Circuit reviews a denial of leave to file a supplemental complaint for abuse of 

discretion. Burns v. Exxon Corp., 158 F.3d 336, 343 (5th Cir. 1998). This is because Rule 15(d) is 

clear that the Court may permit the filing of a supplemental pleading, but need not do so. Id.

(emphasis in original). The Court has inherent authority to manage its docket. Boudwin v. 

Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985). Due to Dizon’s failure to comply with 

the Scheduling Order and the inapplicability of Rule 15(d) to the proposed supplemental pleading,

the undersigned RECOMMENDS that District Judge Reed O’Connor DENY Dizon’s Motion to 

File Supplemental Petition. 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, 

and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with 

a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). To be specific, an objection must 

identify the particular finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates 

by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file 

specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and 

legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except 

upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th 

Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

SIGNED on April 27, 2023. 

__________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 7:22-cv-00040-O-BP Document 55 Filed 04/27/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 635