Cameron McGowan Currie
How Judge Currie rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Currie
Cameron McGowan Currie is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Currie received a commission on March 11, 1994. Judge Currie assumed senior status on October 3, 2013.
Judge Currie's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Currie, 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
Omit signature and date blocks from proposed orders.
“do not include signature or date block on proposed order.”
Trial
Email the full pretrial brief, including voir dire and jury charges, to chambers in Word format and file and serve it.
“email copy of full pretrial brief (including voir dire and jury charges) to chambers in Word format and the full pretrial brief should be filed and served.”
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 Currie decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Comey, she set aside actions flowing from an official’s defective appointment, including securing and signing the indictment.
“In light of these principles, I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Comey, while sitting by designation, Currie read 28 U.S.C. § 546(d) to give the district court the sole power to make a subsequent interim U.S. Attorney appointment after the prior appointment expired. She dismissed the indictment without prejudice after finding the prosecutor’s appointment invalid.
“Subsection (d) then provides a single option for how subsequent interim appointments may be made: ‘If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district’ — and only the district court — ‘may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court grants Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment except as to the claim for damages asserted against Adams in her individual capacity. ... (1) That Section 56-3-10510 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina be, and hereby is, declared to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America;”
“Adams' motion for summary judgment is granted in part as to the individual capacity claim for damages only. Defendants' motions are denied in all other respects.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is, therefore, denied. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the court denies Defendants’ motions to dismiss without prejudice to renewal on motion(s) for summary judgment after the conclusion of discovery.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in full.”
“the court concludes that MedPro is responsible for $67,980.50 of the $475,000 settlement and JUA is responsible for the remainder.”
“the court grants in part and denies in part the cross-motions for summary judgment in these actions, declaring the parties’ respective responsibility for the $475,000 settlement of Shealy’s claims to be as follows: MedPro is responsible for $67,858.50 and JUA is responsible for $407,141.50 of the total settlement.”
“the court grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finds S.C.Code Ann. § 57-25-145 et seq. unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff, and grants a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and others acting with, through or for Defendants from enforcing S.C.Code § 57-25-145 et seq. against Plaintiff”
“the court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s FMLA claim for monetary damages against all Defendants both in their official and individual capacities and Plaintiff’s FMLA claim for injunctive relief against the Lieutenant Governor’s Office on Aging (‘LGOA’) and Defendant Gibbons. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims seeking injunctive relief against Defendants Kester and Theriot, however, remain before the court.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motions are granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims is granted for the reasons set forth above. Dismissal of the fifth through seventh counterclaims is with prejudice. Dismissal of the first through fourth counterclaims is without prejudice subject to the caveats above regarding amendment.”
“This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.”
“The court denies De La Fuente’s motion for preliminary injunction on the basis of the equitable doctrine of laches. ... Therefore, the motion for preliminary injunction is Denied.”
“The court, therefore, grants Epson’s motion for a preliminary injunction against iRULU as to some, but not all, of the relief requested.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 422 days (N = 2).
- As a senior judge, Currie continues to receive a broad civil mix, including diversity insurance and motor-vehicle cases, consumer-credit claims, patent disputes, ERISA and interpleader matters, arbitration-award challenges, Social Security appeals, and contract actions.
- Her longer-term docket also includes First Amendment, election-law, Federal Tort Claims Act, and employment cases.
- Magistrate Judges Paige J. Gossett and Kaymani D.
- West appear on referred 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 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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.
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 Currie: 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 Currie with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Currie, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Currie's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace