Standard Maerkel v. Saul
| Deborah E. Standard Maerkel |
| Andrew Saul and Commissioner Social Security Administration |
| Social Security Administration, US Attorney - Social Security Noticing and Social Security Administrative Record |
| 1:2022cv00740 |
| March 7, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| R Bryan Harwell |
| Shiva V Hodges |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 12, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 24 JUDGMENT The court has ordered that the decision of the Commissioner is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and the action is remanded for further administrative proceedings. (mmcd) |
Filing 23
ORDER granting #22 Motion to Remand, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and remanding the action for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 4/11/2022. (mmcd)
|
| Filing 22 MOTION to Remand by Commissioner Social Security Administration. Response to Motion due by 4/25/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Shiva V Hodges.(Prince, Marshall) |
|
Filing 21
TEXT ORDER granting #20 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 3/30/22. (vhor)
|
| Filing 20 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Russell D. Zimberlin ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number ASCDC-10418523) by Deborah E. Standard Maerkel. Response to Motion due by 4/13/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Appendix Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission, #2 Appendix Certificate of Good Standing)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Shiva V Hodges.(Wendt, Robertson) |
|
Filing 19
TEXT ORDER directing Plaintiff to file a brief by April 21, 2022, and removing attorney Russell D. Zimberlin ("Mr. Zimberlin") as Plaintiff's counsel. Robertson H. Wendt, Jr. (Mr. Wendt) has entered a notice of appearance. [ECF No. 17]. Mr. Zimberlin is not a member of the bar of this court and has not requested special admission and Mr. Wendt does not represent in his motion that Mr. Zimberlin has associated him in accordance with Local Civ. R. 83.I.05 (D.S.C.). (Plaintiffs Brief due by 4/21/2022.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 3/23/2022. (mmcd)
|
|
Filing 18
TEXT ORDER: In accordance with the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) recently completed a Survey of Magistrate Judge Positions in the District of South Carolina. The report is a district-wide review of the court's magistrate judge positions. By local rule, all social security appeals are automatically referred to magistrate judges on a district-wide rotation for reports and recommendations or final disposition by consent of the parties. According to the report, for the period of 2015-2019, social security appeals in this district increased by 37 percent, and felony criminal cases increased by over 16 percent. The Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 established the magistrate judge's system as a supplemental judicial resource to assist the district courts and provide better service to litigants.The AOUSC report notes that in 2019, of the 350 social security appeals decided in the District of South Carolina, only 27 (7.7 percent) were disposed of by magistrate judges with the parties' consent. According to the report:"Many districts around the country have had great success in encouraging consent to magistrate judges in social security appeal cases. Maximizing dispositions on consent rather than through reports and recommendations could be part of the court's strategy, to the extent it is feasible, for maintaining the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of these cases, as well as realizing the benefits of consent outlined below. Consent to disposition by the magistrate judge can bring about a quicker resolution of the appeal than the report and recommendation process." "Therefore, the court may wish to remind the government and members of the social security bar of the consent option, and its time savings for litigants, by appropriate means (e.g., form letters to parties, status conferences, speaking engagements before the bar)."Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 631, United States Magistrate Judges are appointed by the district court. Such appointments are made after a rigorous application and screening process. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, a United States Magistrate Judge may, upon consent of the parties, conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and enter a final order in the case.While parties have the right to adjudication of such matters by a District Judge and may withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences, consideration should be given to the referral of social security appeals to a United States Magistrate Judge for final disposition. The U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina has entered a Standing Consent Agreement for such referrals. See 3:04-mc-5005.Accordingly, counsel for the Plaintiff is directed to consult with the Plaintiff concerning the foregoing and shall file a status report within 30 days informing the court as to whether Plaintiff consents to disposition by a United States Magistrate Judge. If Plaintiff consents, AO Form 85, found at https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/notice-consent-and-reference-civil-action-magistrate-judge, may be filed in lieu of a status report. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 3/23/2022. (tmcb, )
|
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Appearance by Robertson H Wendt, Jr on behalf of Deborah E. Standard Maerkel (Wendt, Robertson) |
| Filing 16 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by Commissioner Social Security Administration. (Attachments: #1 part 2, #2 part 3, #3 part 4, #4 part 5, #5 part 6, #6 part 7, #7 part 8, #8 part 9, #9 part 10, #10 part 11, #11 part 12, #12 part 13, #13 part 14, #14 part 15, #15 part 16, #16 part 17)(Heather, Fritts) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER Defendant is directed to file an Answer/Certified Administrative record by May 10, 2022. Plaintiff's counsel is not a member of the bar of this court. Counsel is directed to notify the court of Plaintiff's representation status by March 22, 2022. ( Answer/Certified Administrative record due 5/10/2022 and Specific document due by 3/22/2022.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 3/8/2022. (mmcd)
|
| Filing 13 Case transferred in from District of Connecticut; Case Number 3:21-cv-00897. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
| JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Barry, Donna) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.] |
|
Filing 12
ORDER denying #2 Motion to Reinstate; granting #9 Motion to Transfer to Another District. For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the Court DENIES Maerkel's motion to reinstate her claim to the docket (Doc. #2). The Court GRANTS the Commissioner's motion to transfer (Doc. #9). The Clerk of the Court shall TRANSFER this action to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/18/2022. (Petkun, J.) Modified on 1/18/2022 to flag ruling as an opinion (Barry, Donna). [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.]
|
| Filing 11 First Memorandum in Opposition re #9 MOTION to Transfer to Another District filed by Deborah E. Standard Maerkel. (Zimberlin, Russell) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.] |
|
Filing 10
ORDER. Plaintiff may file any objection or response to the motion to transfer by August 30, 2021. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/25/21.(Barry, Donna) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.]
|
| Filing 9 MOTION to Transfer to Another District by Andrew Saul. (Fitzhugh, Nicol) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.] |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicol Fitzhugh on behalf of Andrew Saul (Fitzhugh, Nicol) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.] |
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 7/8/21.(Barry, Donna) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.]
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER OF TRANSFER. Case reassigned to Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, the presiding judge on related case 3:17-cv-00170-JAM. Signed by Clerk on 7/8/2021.(Anastasio, F.) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.]
|
| Answer deadline updated for Andrew Saul to 8/30/2021. (Fazekas, J.) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.] |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 06/30/2021.(Fazekas, J.) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.]
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 06/30/2021.(Fazekas, J.) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.]
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 06/30/2021. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Fazekas, J.) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.]
|
| Filing 2 MOTION to Re-Instate Claim to Docket by Deborah E. Standard Maerkel. (Fazekas, J.) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.] |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Andrew Saul, filed by Deborah E. Standard Maerkel. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Cover Letter, #3 Envelope)(Fazekas, J.) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.] |
| Filing fee received from Peter and Deborah Maerkel: $402.00, receipt number CTXH00018139. (Fazekas, J.) [Transferred from Connecticut on 3/7/2022.] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
