Pope v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
| Shitisha Andrea Pope |
| Commissioner of Social Security Administration |
| Social Security Administrative Record |
| 6:2020cv03460 |
| September 30, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Donald C Coggins |
| Kevin McDonald |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Shitisha Andrea Pope. Commissioner of Social Security Administration served on 10/2/2020, pursuant to Local Rule 83.VII.03 answer due 2/1/2021. (Attachments: #1 Supporting Documents Certified Mail Receipts)(Clardy, Timothy) |
| Filing 8 STATUS REPORT by Shitisha Andrea Pope. (Clardy, Timothy) |
Filing 7
TEXT ORDER granting the plaintiff's #5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald on 9/30/20.(ctuc, )
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Shitisha Andrea Pope. Response to Motion due by 10/14/2020. 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 Kevin McDonald. (sgri) |
| Filing 4 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 United States 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 20152019, social security appeals in this district increased by 37 percent, and felony criminal cases increased by over 16 percent. Criminal cases take priority over civil cases due in part due to the Speedy Trial Act. Accordingly, consideration of social security appeals is sometimes delayed as a result of the District Courts necessarily dealing with criminal matters which are on a strict statutory deadline.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 United States 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)." The completion of the AOUSC report is prescient considering recent events which have placed additional strains on district court resources. 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.It has been the practice of this Court to give particular attention to social security appeals given the nature of such actions. However, the impact of increased caseloads, the direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and requirement of docket priority for criminal cases will necessarily affect the court's ability to provide for prompt adjudication of social security cases. While parties have the right to adjudication of such matters by a District Judge and may absolutely withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences, based on the foregoing, 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 to 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 the status report.Entered at the direction of the Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 9/30/2020. (Status Report due by 10/30/2020). (sgri) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Commissioner of Social Security Administration, U.S. Attorney, and U.S. Attorney General. (sgri) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security Administration Clerk's Note: See 28:636(b)(1)(C)(4)(c)(1) and Local Rule 83.VII.02 regarding Consents 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 Limited Power of Attorney)Filed by Shitisha Andrea Pope. Service due by 12/29/2020. (sgri) |
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.
