R. Bryan Harwell
How Judge Harwell rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Harwell
Robert Bryan Harwell is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Harwell received a commission on June 30, 2004. Judge Harwell assumed senior status on June 4, 2024.
Judge Harwell's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Harwell, 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 Harwell requests them.
“Do not send courtesy copies of any documents unless specifically requested.”
Trial
Email the full pretrial brief, including voir dire and jury charges, to chambers in WordPerfect or Word format.
“Email copy of full pretrial brief (including voir dire and jury charges) to chambers in WordPerfect or Word format.”
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 Harwell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In McLaughlin v. CSX Transportation, Harwell allowed a February 2013 failure to promote claim to proceed after reviewing the record and partially rejecting the magistrate judge’s recommendation; he granted summary judgment on the other claims.
“Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support her failure to promote claim with respect to the February 2013 Florence, South Carolina position, and accordingly that claim survives summary judgment.”
In Pelczynski, Harwell granted leave to add plaintiffs, a defendant, and a minimum wage claim before a responsive pleading, citing Rule 15’s liberal standard and the risk that limitations would bar the new plaintiffs.
“Considering Rule 15(a)(2)’s liberal standard, the Court finds justice is served in granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave.”
Procedural preferences
In United States ex rel. Vitale, Harwell compared the alleged fraud schemes rather than relying on their shared defendant and product when applying the False Claims Act’s public disclosure bar.
“The Court finds, however, the Montecalvo suit and the instant lawsuit are not substantially related, and thus the public disclosure bar does not apply.”
Cautions
In Pelczynski, Harwell denied conditional certification of a small FLSA collective because resolving each overtime claim would require individual testimony and credibility findings.
“At best, a collective action would present the same manageability difficulties that separate actions would.”
In Monterey Bay Homes, Harwell excluded a builder expert’s opinions about knowledge from the copyright liability issue, while allowing potentially relevant damages testimony.
“What Wall Tec knew or should have known is not relevant to whether it caused an infringement in some meaningful way.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's R & R is adopted and incorporated herein by reference, and the Court GRANTS in part, DENIES in part, the City's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket #26]. Specifically, the Court grants the City summary judgment as to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, but denies summary judgment as to the FMLA retaliation claim.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motions to dismiss;”
“this Court ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation [ECF #61]. Defendant's motion for summary judgment [ECF #35] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support her failure to promote claim with respect to the February 2013 Florence, South Carolina position, and accordingly that claim survives summary judgment.”
“This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 64. The Court grants in part and denies in part the motion for the reasons set forth below.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 16]. Plaintiff's only remaining claims are breach of contract and bad faith.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 65. Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Relator's FEHBP claims, and DENIED as to Relator's remaining claims.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 6], granting it with respect to the state law claims but denying it with respect to the Title IX and gender discrimination claims.”
“for the reasons stated above, it is enough to withstand summary judgment, and this Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. [ECF # 72].”
“Defendant Wall Tec, LLC's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 64) is DENIED, Defendants Robert and Mary Chambers' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 66) is DENIED”
“Defendants Robert and Mary Chambers' motion to exclude (ECF No. 67) is GRANTED”
“Monterey Bay Homes, LLC's motion to exclude (ECF No. 65) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“the magistrate recommends that the Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ... For the following reasons, this Court adopts the R & R.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 31] is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Specifically, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion as to Plaintiffs quid pro quo mixed motive claim and her hostile work environment claim and GRANTS Defendant's Motion as to all other causes of action.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, ACE INA is dismissed from this action for lack of personal jurisdiction, while the remaining Defendants' request to dismiss this case on the ground of forum non conveniens is denied.”
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 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Harwell: 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 Harwell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Harwell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Harwell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace