Shull v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
| Amber Rosemary Shull |
| Commissioner of Social Security Administration |
| US Attorney - Social Security Noticing and Social Security Administration |
| 2:2021cv01823 |
| June 16, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Mary Gordon Baker |
| J Michelle Childs |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 8 Notice: Social Security Case Service. Reason: duplicate entry. (tsim, ) Modified on 6/22/2021 to add entry type. (tsim, ) |
| Filing 7 TEXT ORDER granting #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Entered at the direction of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker on 06/16/2021. (msaw, ) |
Filing 6
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. Entered at the direction of the Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/16/2021. (tsim, )
|
|
Filing 4
Notice: Social Security Case Service. Pursuant to Standing Order 3:21-mc-00212-RBH signed by Chief Judge R. Bryan Harwell, the Clerk has issued a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system notifying the appropriate Regional Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel and the United States Attorney's Office of the case. No summonses shall issue. Set Answer Deadline - Social Security Complaint: Answer due from Commissioner of Social Security Administration on 12/13/2021. (tsim, )
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Amber Rosemary Shull. Response to Motion due by 6/30/2021. 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. No proposed order. Motions referred to Mary Gordon Baker. (tsim, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security Administration filed by Amber Rosemary Shull. Clerk's Note: See 28:636(b)(1)(C)(4)(c)(1) and Local Rule 83.VII.02 regarding Consent to Proceed before Magistrate Judge in Social Security cases. Consent to Proceed before Magistrate Judge forms are available on the Court's website. (Attachments: #1 Supporting Documents - Notice of Appeal letter)(tsim, ) |
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.
