Shiva V. Hodges
How Judge Hodges rules, drawn from 6 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hodges
Shiva V. Hodges has served as a United States magistrate judge for the District of South Carolina since April 1, 2010. Based in Columbia, she handles civil referrals and criminal proceedings for the court.
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 Hodges decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hemphill v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Hodges recommended granting the employer summary judgment on the discrimination claims; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss Plaintiffs case.”
Procedural preferences
In the referred disability appeal, Hodges required the administrative law judge to explain how the claimant's reported incontinence affected work capacity. She recommended further proceedings because the record did not establish entitlement to an immediate benefits award. The district judge later chose the award remedy.
“ALJ did not satisfy the explanation requirement in SSR 16-3p”
Cautions
In Eghbali v. Department of Energy at Savannah River National Lab, Hodges recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the district judge adopted her recommendation.
“the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ... the court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”
In Drummond v. Bodiford, Hodges recommended dismissal because the plaintiff did not allege that the jail administrator personally took part in the denial of religious material or plead facts supporting supervisory liability. The district judge adopted the recommendation.
“failed to allege any wrongdoing as to Defendant.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Entry #29] be granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Entry # 16] be granted.”
“the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ... the court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”
“reversed and remanded for further proceedings as set forth herein.”
“benefits, [ECF No. 29], is denied.”
“judge grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. [ECF No. 14].”
“the undersigned recommends Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be granted, Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment be 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 | 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 Hodges: 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 Hodges with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hodges, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hodges's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace