Brian K. Epps
How Judge Epps rules, drawn from 4 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Epps left this court for the U.S. Supreme Court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Epps
Brian K. Epps served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Georgia after joining that court in June 2013. Governor Brian Kemp appointed him to the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2026, and he was sworn in on August 11 of that year. Epps earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Georgia.
How Judge Epps decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Faced with a pro se plaintiff's request to appear for a deposition by videoconference from abroad rather than in person, Epps held the parties to the ordinary in-person deposition rule despite the inconvenience, and the district judge affirmed that call on appeal.
“ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 54 Motion for permission to sit for his deposition by videoconference from China rather than appearing in-person within the Southern District of Georgia, made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4).”
In Williams v. Bisignano, Epps reversed and remanded a disability-benefits denial because the administrative decision did not adequately explain how the evidence about mental impairments supported its residual-functional-capacity finding.
“the Court finds the ALJ failed to provide the requisite ‘sufficient rationale linking the record evidence to the RFC determination.’”
Procedural preferences
In Kielisch v. Lincoln County Jail, he recommended dismissing the prisoner's complaint without prejudice after screening found it failed to state a claim.
“REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and CLOSED.”
In Smith v. Fort, he vacated his earlier dismissal recommendation after the plaintiff supplied the missing fee papers and granted the motion to proceed without prepaying fees.
“ORDER vacating 4 Report and Recommendations.; granting 6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.”
Cautions
In Forsyth v. Orkin, LLC, Epps granted in part a motion for a qualified protective order and directed the defendants to submit a proposed order within 14 days.
“ORDER granting in part 25 Motion for a Qualified Protective Order. Defendants are ordered to submit a proposed order in accordance with the terms set forth herein within 14 days of the date of this order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
A state habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 was filed in the Southern District of Georgia's Dublin Division challenging a Middle District of Georgia (Thomas County) conviction. Epps transferred the case to the Middle District under this court's practice of sending such petitions to the district where the underlying conviction was obtained: "the Court ORDERS the transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division." An administrative order, not a ruling on a party motion.
“For the reasons stated on the record during today’s status conference, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Compel.”
“ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 54 Motion for permission to sit for his deposition by videoconference from China rather than appearing in-person within the Southern District of Georgia, made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4).”
“For the reasons set forth above, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court REVERSES the Commissioner’s final decision and REMANDS this case to the Commissioner for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 19 days (N = 29).
- Epps is the referral magistrate on nearly every Augusta-Division civil case assigned to Chief/District Judge J.
- Randal Hall: Rule 26(f) scheduling, discovery disputes, and non-dispositive motions are almost always his, and dispositive motions in prisoner, pro se, and pretrial-detainee cases typically reach the district judge only after Epps issues a Report and Recommendation.
- His own docket (cases transferred to him directly, mostly by consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c)) is dominated by Social Security disability appeals, with occasional insurance, contract, and diversity matters.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Epps left this court for the U.S. Supreme Court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.