This case was last updated from PACER on 08/03/2021 at 07:30:10 (UTC).

Mock v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Case Summary

On 06/04/2021 Mock filed a Government Benefit - Social Security Disability lawsuit against Commissioner of Social Security Administration. This case was filed in U.S. District Courts, South Carolina District. The Judges overseeing this case are Molly H Cherry and J Michelle Childs. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    9:21-CV-01658

  • Filing Date:

    06/04/2021

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Government Benefit - Social Security Disability

Judge Details

Referral Judge

Molly H Cherry

Presiding Judge

J Michelle Childs

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Wanda Mock

Defendant

Commissioner of 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

#9

RESTRICTED

#8

(#8) ORDER granting #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Molly H Cherry on 06/08/2021.(cpeg, ) (Entered: 06/08/2021)

#1

RESTRICTED

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/14/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Wanda Mock (Whitten, Beatrice) (Entered: 06/14/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) ORDER granting #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Molly H Cherry on 06/08/2021.(cpeg, ) (Entered: 06/08/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • Docket(#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 Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 6/4/2021. (tsim, ) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • 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 Social Security Administration on 12/1/2021. (tsim, ) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Wanda Mock. Response to Motion due by 6/18/2021. 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. (Attachments: #1 Fee Agreement) No proposed order. Motions referred to Molly H Cherry. (tsim, ) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#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 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 Wanda Mock.(tsim, ) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    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