Bristow Marchant
How Judge Marchant rules, drawn from 6 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Marchant
Bristow Marchant served as a United States magistrate judge in the District of South Carolina after his appointment in 1992. He handled referred civil and criminal matters in Columbia, Charleston, and Greenville during his judicial service.
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 Marchant decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, recommends granting in part: letting retaliation claims proceed while dismissing the remaining causes of action.
“defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs retaliation claim under Title VII and § 1981 as set forth in the First and Second Causes of Action is DENIED. Defendant's motion to dismiss the remaining causes of action is GRANTED, and those claims are dismissed.”
In Ferguson v. Waffle House, Marchant recommended summary judgment for the employer after finding insufficient evidence to support the employee’s discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims.
“Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted, and that this case be dismissed.”
Procedural preferences
In House v. Aiken County National Bank, Marchant recommended treating the defendants' dismissal motion as one for summary judgment because it relied on a signed release. He recommended granting it without prejudice so the plaintiffs could seek relief concerning the release in state court.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss, treated as a motion for summary judgment, should be granted, without prejudice. This will allow Plaintiffs to return to state court to seek a voidance of the previous settlement between the parties, which would include the release.”
Cautions
In Woodbury v. Colvin, Marchant recommended affirming the denial of disability benefits. After reviewing Woodbury's objections, the district judge adopted his recommendation and affirmed the Commissioner.
“United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant’s Report and Recommendation (‘R & R’) that this court affirm Acting Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn Colvin’s ... decision denying plaintiff Jo Ann Woodbury’s ... claims for disability insurance benefits ... the court adopts the R & R and affirms the Commissioner’s decision.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss, treated as a motion for summary judgment, should be granted, without prejudice. This will allow Plaintiffs to return to state court to seek a voidance of the previous settlement between the parties, which would include the release.”
“Defendants' motion for sanctions should be denied.”
“defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs retaliation claim under Title VII and § 1981 as set forth in the First and Second Causes of Action is DENIED. Defendant's motion to dismiss the remaining causes of action is GRANTED, and those claims are dismissed.”
“the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (‘R & R’), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
“The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.”
“United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant’s Report and Recommendation (‘R & R’) that this court affirm Acting Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn Colvin’s ... decision denying plaintiff Jo Ann Woodbury’s ... claims for disability insurance benefits ... the court adopts the R & R and affirms the Commissioner’s decision.”
“the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is AFFIRMED, and defendant Salient’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs cause of action for constructive discharge is DENIED.”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Marchant was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2024.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 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 District of South Carolina, not for Judge Marchant: 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 | 2,805 | 7.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 724 | 5.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,005 | 8.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 64 | 17.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 36 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,805 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 5,800 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,296 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,364 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,599 | 10 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,190 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,402 | 9.8 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 Marchant with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Marchant, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Marchant's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace