Richardson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
| Thomas Richardson |
| Commissioner of Social Security Administration |
| Social Security Administrative Record |
| 8:2020cv03725 |
| October 22, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Jacquelyn D Austin |
| Sherri A Lydon |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 8, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 STATUS REPORT by Thomas Richardson. (McChesney, Paul) |
Filing 7
TEXT ORDER granting #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 10/26/2020. (sgri)
|
|
Filing 6
TEXT ORDER: By local rule in this District, all social security appeals are automatically referred to United States Magistrate Judges on a district-wide rotation for reports and recommendations or, by consent of the parties, final disposition. 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 and issued a report reviewing the Courts Magistrate Judge positions (the AOUSC Report). According to the AOUSC Report, for the period of 2015-2019, social security appeals in this District increased by 37%, and felony criminal cases increased by over 16%. Criminal cases take priority over civil cases due, in part, to the Speedy Trial Act. As a result, consideration of social security appeals is sometimes delayed. Further, the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 established the magistrate judge's system as a supplemental judicial resource to assist the district courts and to provide better service to litigants. The AOUSC Report notes that in 2019, of the 350 social security appeals decided in this District, only 27 (7.7%) were disposed of by Magistrate Judges with the parties' consent. According to the AOUSC 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)." Given recent events with the COVID-19 pandemic, which have placed additional strains on the Districts resources, the findings and suggestions of the AOUSC Report are of even greater significance. As a result of both the AOUSC Report and the recent events, this Court finds it imperative to remind the parties of the opportunity to consent to final disposition of social security appeal cases by a Magistrate Judge. Again, it has been the practice of this Court to give particular attention to social security appeals given the nature of such actions. The impact of increased caseloads, the direct and indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the requirement of docket priority for criminal cases, however, will necessarily affect this Court's ability to provide for prompt adjudication of social security cases. The Magistrate Judges, however, are well equipped to handle final disposition of these cases in a timely manner. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 631, Magistrate Judges are appointed by the District Court. Such appointments are made after a rigorous application and screening process. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, a 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 absolutely withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences, based on the foregoing, consideration should be given to the referral of social security appeals to a 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 U.S. 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 Sherri A. Lydon on 10/23/2020. (Status Report due by 11/23/2020). (sgri)
|
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to the Commissioner of Social Security Administration, the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Attorney General. (sgri) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Thomas Richardson. Response to Motion due by 11/5/2020. 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 Jacquelyn D. Austin. (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. Filed by Thomas Richardson. Service due by 1/20/2021. (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.
