Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from PACER on 06/11/2021 at 08:38:53 (UTC).

Howell v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Case Summary

On 06/10/2021 Howell 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 Thomas E Rogers, III and Sherri A Lydon. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    4:21-CV-01745

  • Filing Date:

    06/10/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Government Benefit - Social Security Disability

  • Court:

    U.S. District Courts

  • Courthouse:

    South Carolina District

Judge Details

Referral Judge

Thomas E Rogers, III

Presiding Judge

Sherri A Lydon

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

David C Howell, Jr

Defendant

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Interested Parties

US Attorney - Social Security Noticing

Social Security Administrative Record

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Beatrice E Whitten

Attorney at Beatrice E Whitten Law Office

1110 Queensborough Boulevard

Mt Pleasant, SC 29464

William Thomas Milton

Attorney at Beatrice E Whitten Law Office

1110 Queensborough Boulevard

Mt Pleasant, SC 29464

 

Court Documents

#3

RESTRICTED

#1

RESTRICTED

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/10/2021
  • Docket(#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 ofSouth Carolina and issued a report reviewing the Court's 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 realizingthe 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 District's 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 Judgemay, 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 6/10/2021.Status Report due by 7/12/2021. (gnan ) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • Docket(#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 the Social Security Administration on or before 12/7/2021. (gnan, ) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by David C Howell, Jr. Response to Motion due by 6/24/2021. No proposed order. Motions referred to Thomas E Rogers, III.(gnan ) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Commissioner of the Social Security Administration 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 David C Howell, Jr.(gnan ) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

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 William Thomas Milton