Kaymani D. West
How Judge West rules, drawn from 4 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge West
Kaymani D. West has served as a United States magistrate judge for the District of South Carolina since January 2012. She sits in Florence and previously clerked for District Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr. and practiced civil litigation.
Judge West's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge West's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 West decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Wingate civil rights case, West recommended qualified immunity on the knock-and-announce claim but recommended that the excessive-force claim and other remaining claims proceed against Weatherford.
“Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended granting Weatherford summary judgment on Plaintiffs § 1983 claim for Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce violations based on qualified immunity. ... However, she recommended denying Weatherford summary judgment on Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment cause of action for excessive force and for all remaining causes of action.”
Procedural preferences
In Robinson v. BGM America, Inc., she recommended granting the employer's summary judgment motion on the employment-discrimination claims. The district judge adopted her recommendation in full.
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 30, be granted and Plaintiffs case be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“this court adopts the Report and Recommendation and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and this matter be ended.”
“It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant Weatherford’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 59) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“It is further ORDERED that Defendants Wayne Byrd, Darlington County Sherriffs Office, and County of Darlington’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 64) is GRANTED—these parties are therefore dismissed from this action.”
“The third Report and Recommendation ... recommended granting Defendants City of Darlington, Darlington Police Department, and Clyde M. Sheppard’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing these Defendants.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the court grant Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 27, deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and dismiss the Petition.”
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 | 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 West: 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 West with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge West, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge West's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace