Jacquelyn Denise Austin
How Judge Austin rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Austin
Jacquelyn Denise Austin is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Austin received a commission on January 29, 2024.
Judge Austin's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Austin, 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
Send courtesy copies of filed documents longer than 25 pages; bind and tab copies longer than 50 pages.
“submit courtesy copies of any filed document that exceeds 25 pages and all courtesy copies over 50 pages in bound form with exhibits indexed and tabbed”
Filing
Submit audio or video exhibits on a flash drive and file a same-day non-standard item notification.
“Electronic media files such as audio or video must be manually submitted on a flash drive”
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 Austin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Delgado, Austin remanded an insurance dispute after finding that the South Carolina agency was properly joined. The pleadings left a possible contract claim against it, so the parties lacked complete diversity.
“The Court therefore grants Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.”
Procedural preferences
In McBee v. Mueller, Austin adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute after mail to the plaintiff was repeatedly returned undeliverable.
“The motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution by Defendants Maj. Steven Anderson, Cpt. Wells, CO Mark McKinney, and CO Tristan Lewis Doc. 44 and the motion by Defendant Steve Outz to join in the other Defendants' motion to dismiss Doc. 47 are both GRANTED and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
In Kirby, Austin independently reviewed the record before adopting a dismissal recommendation even though the self-represented plaintiff’s objections did not identify a specific error.
“The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections, liberally construed, fail to specifically address the Report’s findings and recommendations.”
In M.F., Austin applied her summary-judgment statement procedure when the parties did not present facts in the required numbered and disputed-or-undisputed form. She deemed both sides’ asserted facts undisputed for that motion.
“the facts provided by both parties will be deemed undisputed for the purposes of the motion for summary judgment”
In Hughes, Austin reviewed security footage de novo when a prisoner objected to summary judgment and concluded that video evidence contradicted parts of his account.
“The Court has conducted a de novo review of the video footage and concludes that the Magistrate Judge did not err in discrediting portions of Plaintiff’s factual statements.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court therefore grants Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.”
“The motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution by Defendants Maj. Steven Anderson, Cpt. Wells, CO Mark McKinney, and CO Tristan Lewis Doc. 44 and the motion by Defendant Steve Outz to join in the other Defendants' motion to dismiss Doc. 47 are both GRANTED and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, Respondent's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 23] is FOUND AS MOOT.”
Pro se prisoner 1983 civil-rights complaint. Austin accepted MJ Kevin McDonald's R&R (entry 13, 2024-12-03) and summarily dismissed the action with prejudice at 28 U.S.C. 1915/1915A screening, without issuance and service of process. Because there was no party motion, it is excluded from the motion counts but recorded among her rulings.
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 52] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Title VII claims.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 20] is GRANTED and the case is dismissed without prejudice.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 4] is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s motion to remand [Doc. 7] is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“remand [Doc. 7] is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“motion to reinstate case number 3:23-cv-00659-JDA [Doc. 23] is also DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Owens’s motion for a temporary restraining order and for expedited briefing [Doc. 5] is DENIED.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.”
“Defendants’ motions for summary judgment [Docs. 54; 108] are GRANTED.”
“Burlington’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. 28] is GRANTED, and Burlington is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. 28] is GRANTED.”
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 | 24 |
| 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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 24 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 17 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 26 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 35 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| 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.
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 Austin: 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 Austin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Austin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Austin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace