This case was last updated from PACER on 09/17/2021 at 07:28:38 (UTC).

Brebner v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Case Summary

On 09/16/2021 Brebner filed a Government Benefit - Social Security Disability lawsuit against Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. This case was filed in U.S. District Courts, South Carolina District. The Judges overseeing this case are Cameron McGowan Currie and Kaymani D West. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Government Benefit - Social Security Disability

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Cameron McGowan Currie

Referral Judge

Kaymani D West


Party Details


Cameron B Brebner


Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Interested Parties

Social Security Administrative Record

US Attorney - Social Security Noticing

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

W Daniel Mayes

Attorney at Smith Massey Brodie Thumond Guynn and Mayes

Po Drawer 2650

Aiken, SC 29802


Court Documents




Docket Entries

  • 09/16/2021
  • Docket(#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 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. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, grand jury proceedings were postponed, and criminal jury trials have been continued through September 1, 2020. Most detention facilities have initiated mitigation measures which limit the transportation of inmates and in-person visits, including attorney visits. These events have necessarily resulted in a backlog of criminal cases which will require attention as such restrictions are relaxed. New criminal cases will be generated once Grand Jury proceedings resume. Criminal cases take priority over civil cases due in part due to the Speedy Trial Act. Once restrictive measures are released, the court anticipates a flood of criminal matters that will require disposition, which must be given priority over civil matters, including social security appeals. This is in addition to a recent increase in filings by federal inmates seeking reduction in sentences, compassionate release, and other collateral relief pursuant to the First Step Act of 2019 and recent appellate court opinions. 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)." The completion of the AO report is prescient considering recent events which will place 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. Other jurisdictions have recognized that the impact of COVID-19 will include the backlog of civil cases, and the need to utilize magistrate judges to address this problem. As noted by Mark A. Berman, former chair of the commercial and federal litigation section of the New York State Bar Association, It became clear that civil litigators, who need to move their cases forward, have overlooked that, upon consent, magistrate judges can conduct all proceedings in a civil action. The impact of the pandemic now offers the opportunity to take advantage of the offices of magistrate judges who, upon consent, can decide motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and to hold bench and jury trials. Civil Litigators Have An Option In Federal Courts: Magistrate Judges, 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 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 within 30 days as to whether Plaintiff consents to disposition by a United States Magistrate Judge. If Plaintiff consents, AO Form 85, found at should be filed with the Clerk. Entered at the direction of Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 9/16/2021. Status Report due by 10/18/2021. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 9/16/2021. (gnan ) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • Docket(#3) 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 the Social Security Administration on or by 3/15/2022. (gnan, ) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0420-10076852.) 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, filed by Cameron B Brebner.(gnan ) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases where Social Security Noticing is a litigant

Latest cases where Social Security Administrative Record is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer W Daniel Mayes