Kimberly A. Swank
How Judge Swank rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Swank
Kimberly A. Swank was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina in 2013 and maintains chambers in Greenville. She previously clerked for a North Carolina Supreme Court justice, practiced civil and appellate law, and served as a law clerk in the federal district court. She earned degrees from East Carolina University and Campbell University School of Law.
Judge Swank's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Swank, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- 14-JP-1-KS: Text-Searchable Social Security Records ↗
- 14-JP-2-KS: Misdemeanor Proceedings at Fort Bragg, VA Fayetteville and Sunny Point ↗
- 14-JP-3-KS: Penalty Sheets ↗
Key rules
Filing
The Commissioner must file a searchable administrative record in Social Security appeals reassigned or referred to Judge Swank.
“The Commissioner (or Acting Commissioner) of Social Security shall file a text- searchable copy of the administrative record in every Social Security appeal,”
Filing
Government penalty sheets in criminal cases before Judge Swank must cite the statutory basis for each listed penalty.
“the penalty sheets submitted by the USAO shall state for each penalty listed, including but not limited to the term of imprisonment, fine, period of supervised release, and period of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release, the specific statutory provisions (including all applicable subparts) authorizing such penalty.”
Motions
In the covered misdemeanor cases, more than six continuances require a showing of exceptional circumstances at a hearing.
“No more than six continuances will be allowed a defendant without the defendant's counsel or, if pro se, the defendant personally demonstrating to the court's satisfaction at a hearing that exceptional circumstances warrant a further continuance.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Swank decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Minchew v. Berryhill, Swank remanded because the ALJ had not made specific findings about the claimant’s need for bathroom breaks or resolved related vocational testimony.
“the court cannot determine whether the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.”
In Bryan v. Colvin, Swank affirmed the Commissioner’s disability decision after reviewing the claimant’s challenges to the vocational rehabilitation finding, impairment listings, credibility assessment, and vocational testimony. She found substantial evidence for the relevant findings and treated the failure to assign explicit weight to the rehabilitation decision as harmless.
“For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.”
In James v. Colvin, Swank remanded after finding that the ALJ had inadequately explained the weight assigned to medical opinions and the absence of postural limitations despite the claimant’s below-knee amputation.
“As such, the court is unable to determine whether the ALJ’s assessment of the medical opinions is supported by substantial evidence.”
Procedural preferences
In Minchew v. Berryhill, Swank held oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings before remanding the Social Security appeal.
“On October 31, 2018, the court held oral argument in the matter.”
In Delias v. Berryhill, Swank granted the Commissioner’s unopposed request for a sentence-four remand and returned the case for further administrative action.
“upon consideration of Defendant’s unopposed request to remand this cause for further administrative action, the Court hereby reverses Defendant’s decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remands the case to Defendant for further administrative action.”
Cautions
In Bogues v. Commissioner of Social Security, Swank dismissed the self-represented claimant's appeal without prejudice after the claimant failed to answer a show-cause order and the twice-extended response deadline had expired.
“Plaintiff has not responded to the court's show cause order, and the twice extended deadline to respond expired almost two months ago. Accordingly, the court hereby DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with this court's orders.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER denying 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 21 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and AFFIRMING the Commissioner's decision.”
“ORDER denying 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and affirms the Commissioner's decision.”
“ORDER granting 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying 27 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and REMANDING this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying the defendant's 31 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and REMANDING this matter to the Commissioner for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g).”
“ORDER granting Plaintiff's 26 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying the Defendant's 30 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and REMANDING this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting the Plaintiff's 33 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 39 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and REMANDING this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting the plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 19 and denying the defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 23 and remanding the case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 19 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and REMANDING this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying Defendant's 31 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying Defendant's 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and remanding this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 29, denying the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 31, and the case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further consideration.”
“ORDER denying Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granting the defendant's 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled dockets include consent Social Security disability appeals alongside general civil assignments and criminal-duty matters. The appeals show remands and affirmances, with one sampled dismissal for failure to prosecute. Current assignments continued into 2026.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, not for Judge Swank: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 1,130 | 8.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 640 | 8.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 486 | 8.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 2 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,130 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,093 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 967 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 884 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 864 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 802 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 950 | 9.4 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Swank with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Swank, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Swank's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace