Thomas E. Rogers III
How Judge Rogers rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rogers
Thomas E. Rogers III has served as a United States magistrate judge for the District of South Carolina since May 2002. He sits in Florence and hears civil and criminal matters assigned to the magistrate bench.
Judge Rogers's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Rogers'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 Rogers decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Williams, Rogers recommended granting the college summary judgment on the former instructor’s federal discrimination and retaliation claims and declining jurisdiction over the state claims; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the race and age discrimination claims, as well as the retaliation claim, and decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. ... the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the federal claims”
Procedural preferences
In McHoney, Rogers recommended denying respondents’ habeas summary-judgment motion with permission to refile on the merits, but the district judge rejected that recommendation and granted the motion as untimely.
“the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that (1) Respondents’ motion for summary judgment be denied and Respondents be allowed to re-file their motion for summary judgment addressing the merits of Petitioner’s habeas allegations”
Cautions
In Langley, Rogers recommended denying the employer summary judgment on the quid pro quo mixed motive and hostile work environment claims while granting it on the remaining claims; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“the magistrate recommends that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs quid pro quo mixed motive claim and her hostile work environment claim and that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion as to all other causes of action. ... this Court adopts the R & R.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that (1) Respondents’ motion for summary judgment be denied and Respondents be allowed to re-file their motion for summary judgment addressing the merits of Petitioner’s habeas allegations”
“(2) that Petitioner’s motion to stay his habeas petition be denied.”
“this court adopts the Report and hereby grants the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Omni Indemnity Company (ECF No. 96) and denies the Motions for Declaratory Judgment filed by Plaintiff”
“denies the Motions for Declaratory Judgment filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 107, 115.) Thus, this action is hereby dismissed in its entirety.”
“In the R & R, the magistrate recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ... this Court adopts the R & R.”
“the magistrate recommends that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs quid pro quo mixed motive claim and her hostile work environment claim and that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion as to all other causes of action. ... this Court adopts the R & R.”
“the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the race and age discrimination claims, as well as the retaliation claim, and decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. ... the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the federal claims”
“the Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. ... Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF #35] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the Report and grants summary judgment in Defendant’s favor.”
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 Rogers: 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 Rogers with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rogers, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rogers's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace