Terry L. Wooten
How Judge Wooten rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wooten
Terry L. Wooten is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Wooten received a commission on November 26, 2001. Judge Wooten assumed senior status on February 28, 2019.
Judge Wooten's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wooten, 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.
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 Wooten decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Sonoco securities action, the court denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion because material factual issues remained, including loss causation and damages, and denied the competing expert-exclusion motions.
“For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Doc. # 108).”
In Bryant, the court accepted video evidence contradicting the prisoner’s account of the cell transfer and granted the officers summary judgment on his excessive-force claim.
“these allegations are conclusively rebutted by the videos of the incident.”
Procedural preferences
In Cricket Store 17, the court upheld Columbia’s adult-business ordinances against a First Amendment challenge after finding that 46 relocation sites were available and that the ordinances met the applicable time, place, and manner standard.
“Based on the analysis set forth above, the Court has concluded that there are forty-six sites available in the City for a sexually oriented business to locate. ... For the reasons discussed above, the ordinances are treated as content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations; are designed to serve a substantial government interest; are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and have not unreasonably limited alternative avenues of communication.”
Cautions
In Darwin National Assurance Co. v. Matthews & Megna LLC, Wooten denied the insurer’s summary judgment motion, declined to rescind the policies, and held that it owed a defense under the 2011–2012 policy; he left indemnification undecided.
“The Court concludes that Plaintiff Darwin is not entitled to rescind the Insurance Policies it issued to the Defendants and that the 2011-2012 Policy applies to the 2012 Claim against the Defendants in the underlying state court proceeding. Consequently, Darwin has a duty to defend that claim.”
In Alexander, the court granted the employer summary judgment on the Title VII claim after finding legitimate reasons for its actions and no evidence of pretext.
“SCDOT was able to establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for each action and that Plaintiff could not establish pretext.”
In an insurance coverage dispute, the court denied most of the insurer’s summary judgment request because the evidence did not establish the timing of the underlying events.
“the factual allegations of the underlying complaint and the submitted evidence simply do not sufficiently establish what occurred and when it occurred.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Doc. # 108).”
“Additionally, as set forth, Defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of John D. Finnerty, Ph.D. is DENIED. (Doc. # 105).”
“Plaintiffs motions to exclude the testimony of John P. Freeman and the testimony of Christopher F. Noe, Ph.D., as set forth, are DENIED. (Docs. # 109 and 110).”
“Thus, after careful consideration, for the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 22) is hereby DENIED.”
“Before the Court are the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, and Taboo's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 38. The Court grants the City's motion and denies Taboo's motion.”
“This matter comes before the Court for consideration of the pro se petition to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Petitioner Johnny Cade. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the petition.”
“Accordingly, his petition for relief pursuant to § 2255, ECF No. 78, is GRANTED. His sentence in this case is hereby VACATED.”
“Bryant’s motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 15, is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 59, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s first motion to amend, ECC No. 34, is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff’s subsequent motion to amend, ECF No. 53, is GRANTED in part”
“deny as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 38]. ... the Report, ECF No. 59, is ACCEPTED. ... Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 38, is DENIED.”
“SDOT’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 111, is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 116, is DENIED.”
“the plaintiffs motion for default judgment and award of attorneys’ fees and other costs (Doc. # 12) is GRANTED.”
“the motion to dismiss filed by Personal Touch, Inder, and Sapna (Doc. #29) is DENIED.”
“this Court GRANTS Auto Owners’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 27) with respect to Gardner’s claims and holds that the Auto Owners policy provides no coverage for the claims alleged by Gardner in the underlying state court complaint. The remainder of the summary judgment motion (Doc. # 27) is DENIED.”
“the motion to stay Auto Owners’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 31) is DENIED because it is now moot.”
“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all claims. (Doc. #17).”
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 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Wooten: 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 Wooten with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wooten, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wooten's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace