Mary Geiger Lewis
How Judge Lewis rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lewis
Mary Geiger Lewis is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Lewis received a commission on June 20, 2012.
Judge Lewis's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lewis, 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 a courtesy copy of any filed document longer than 25 pages, except prisoner litigation unless chambers requests one.
“Send a courtesy copy of any filed document that exceeds 25 pages.”
Motions
A party may file only one summary judgment motion in a case; separate partial summary judgment motions are disallowed.
“Each party is entitled to file just one motion for summary judgment in a case. The filing of several partial motions for summary judgment by a party is disallowed.”
Discovery
Consult opposing counsel and hold a telephone conference with Judge Lewis before filing a discovery motion.
“no motions relating to discovery shall be filed until counsel have consulted and attempted to resolve the matter as required by Local Civil Rule 7.02 and have had a telephone conference with Judge Lewis”
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 Lewis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A recusal request must identify a disqualifying basis beyond adverse judicial rulings; unsupported allegations of unfairness did not warrant removing the magistrate judge.
“that the Magistrate Judge’s rulings have disfavored him are insufficient to remove her from this case.”
In the reviewed insurance case, a complaint that alleged the policy, nonpayment of benefits, and resulting harm stated a contract claim at the pleading stage. The court did not require exact amounts before discovery.
“She was, however, without any obligation to be more specific.”
In the reviewed life-insurance dispute, the court denied partial summary judgment after reading the two-year contestability limit to depend on the insured surviving that period.
“the time limitation on contestability applies only if the policy is in force for two years before the insured’s death.”
Procedural preferences
Requires objections to identify a specific error in a magistrate judge's recommendation; general or conclusory objections do not trigger de novo review.
“This Court, however, need not conduct a de novo review of the record ‘when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the [Magistrate Judge’s] proposed findings and recommendations.’”
Where defendants had actual notice, Lewis declined to rest dismissal on technical service defects and instead addressed the alternative immunity, state-action, and pleading grounds.
“It is undisputed the Defendants had actual notice of Guess’s claims, as evidenced by the motions to dismiss filed by Judge Coble, Stout, and Travelers and by a settlement offer Bayne emailed Guess. Therefore, the Court turns to the alternative grounds for dismissal noted in the Report.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is the judgment of the Court that Defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted.”
“it is the judgment of this Court that it will grant Defendants' motions to transfer, which effectively transfers the motions to dismiss.”
“the Court will grant Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) to the extent it will abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger abstention doctrine.”
“it is the judgment of the Court Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and dismissed without prejudice in part.”
“Wherefore, based on the foregoing discussion and analysis, it is the judgment of this Court Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED, whereas McCallum's and Budget's motions for partial summary judgment are GRANTED.”
“Wherefore, based on the foregoing discussion and analysis, it is the judgment of this Court that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court issues a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT that the provision in Plaintiffs' Policy authorizing Defendant to offset UIM benefits payable to Plaintiffs by the amount of MedPay benefits issued is enforceable, but the offset shall be applied only after Plaintiffs are fully compensated for their damages as determined by the underlying litigation.”
“Wherefore, based on the foregoing discussion and analysis, it is the judgment of this Court that Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the Court's Order granting Defendant Bayview's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Consequently, based on the foregoing discussion and analysis, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment are GRANTED.”
“It is the judgment of the Court Respondent's motion to dismiss is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the motion to transfer is GRANTED. Therefore, this case shall be transferred to District Court of the Virgin Islands for further proceedings.”
“Wherefore, based on the foregoing discussion and analysis, it is the judgment of the Court Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify is DENIED. Each party will bear his/her own attorneys' fees and costs.”
“Wherefore, based on the foregoing discussion and analysis, it is the judgment of this Court American's motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. As a result, both American's motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' contingent motion to dismiss are RENDERED MOOT. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.”
“As a result, both American's motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' contingent motion to dismiss are RENDERED MOOT.”
“Wherefore, based on the forgoing discussion and analysis, it is the judgment of this Court Defendants' motion to quash is DENIED. Counsel for BHOTS shall produce the relevant documents, consistent with the narrowed scope of the subpoena and with the terms of the Confidentiality Order, not later than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 154 days (N = 8).
Lewis's sampled caseload includes ERISA benefit disputes, insurance and diversity actions, Social Security appeals, prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, consumer-protection suits, and federal criminal cases. Many of the civil matters ended through settlement-dismissal orders or reassignment before a merits 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 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Lewis: 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 Lewis with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lewis, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lewis's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace