Bruce Howe Hendricks
How Judge Hendricks rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hendricks
Bruce Howe Hendricks is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Hendricks received a commission on June 5, 2014.
Judge Hendricks's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hendricks, 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.
Key rules
Filing
Do not send courtesy copies unless Judge Hendricks requests them.
“Do not send courtesy copy of any documents unless specifically requested.”
Motions
During criminal speedy trial periods, a continuance motion must state that the defendant understands and agrees to waive speedy trial rights for the continuance.
“Counsel must either file a motion to continue including the specific language that the defendant is aware of his/her speedy trial rights and agrees to waive them for purposes of a continuance”
Discovery
Arrange a telephone conference with Judge Hendricks before filing a discovery motion.
“prior to filing motions relating to discovery , the attorneys are required to have a telephone conference with Judge Hendricks.”
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 Hendricks decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Boisvert v. Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., Hendricks granted summary judgment under South Carolina’s Door Closing Statute because the plaintiff’s purchase and accident occurred elsewhere and Virginia remained an available forum.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 24). The case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.”
In LM Insurance, Hendricks allowed a contingent contract-reformation claim to proceed where competing positions about which insurer covered the workers made mutual mistake plausible at the pleading stage.
“The Court finds that CRS has pled a mutual mistake of fact sufficient to satisfy Rule 8 as to its claim for reformation of the GIC Policies, and the Motion to Dismiss on these grounds is denied.”
Procedural preferences
In Williams v. National Union Fire Insurance, Hendricks denied dismissal motions after finding that the limitations defense did not clearly appear on the complaint and the plaintiffs had alleged injury from buying the disputed policies.
“the defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69) and motion to stay the action pending a ruling on the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 73) are denied.”
In E.E., Hendricks transferred the case to a court with jurisdiction instead of dismissing it after finding that the defendant lacked sufficient South Carolina contacts.
“Having found that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant, the Court declines to dismiss this action and instead, exercises its discretion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).”
Cautions
In Degidio, Hendricks denied a motion to dismiss a former dancer’s state wage claim based on alleged tip deductions. She distinguished an out-of-state decision that had not separately analyzed whether tips were wages.
“At this stage, the allegations set forth in the complaint are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.”
In First Acceptance, the court dismissed a third-party claimant’s insurance counterclaims where no contract privity was alleged; the claimant also conceded that two cited statutes provided no private cause of action.
“Here, no privity is alleged to exist between Frye and First Acceptance.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 24). The case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.”
“the defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69) and motion to stay the action pending a ruling on the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 73) are denied.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motions for summary judgment.”
“the Court adopts the Report and grants summary judgment in Defendant's favor.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 117) is DENIED.”
“the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 58);”
“the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 66).”
“Third-Party Defendant GIC’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 48) is DENIED.”
“GIC’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 52) is DENIED as moot.”
“the Court transfers the action to the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division.”
“the Court grants First Acceptance’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 16), and dismisses Frye’s counterclaims.”
“the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 20).”
“Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 32) is granted in part and denied in part”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45) is granted in part and denied in part”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 379 days (N = 7).
The sampled caseload includes substantial federal civil-enforcement and False Claims Act work, criminal matters, federal habeas and post-conviction proceedings, contract and employment disputes, civil-rights cases, and miscellaneous subpoena or discovery matters. Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III handled the referral underlying the McLeod Health summary-judgment ruling.
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 9 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 14 | 4 |
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 Hendricks: 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 Hendricks with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hendricks, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hendricks's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace