Timothy M. Cain
How Judge Cain rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cain
Timothy M. Cain serves as a senior judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Appointed by President Barack Obama, he received his commission on September 26, 2011, and assumed senior status on October 1, 2026.
Judge Cain's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Cain'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 Cain decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In King, Cain denied most of TD Bank’s dismissal motion after finding that the state deposit claims were not preempted, while dismissing the unconscionability claim.
“only Plaintiffs' claim of unconscionability is dismissed. Accordingly, Defendant TD Bank's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”
In an FLSA collective action, Cain found the plaintiffs’ allegations of a common independent-contractor classification practice sufficient for conditional certification at the notice stage.
“Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient allegations of a common plan”
Procedural preferences
In Lawson, Cain granted reconsideration and summary judgment for the defendant after analyzing the employee’s First Amendment claim and the confidential nature of her deputy-clerk role.
“Gault's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 39) and motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to dismiss (ECF No. 26) are GRANTED.”
In Hamrick, no party objected to the magistrate judge’s summary-judgment recommendation. Cain reviewed for clear error, adopted the recommendation, and granted the motion without repeating its merits analysis.
“Having reviewed the Report and the record and, finding no clear error, the court agrees”
In a workplace retaliation case, he treated objections that repeated the earlier opposition as general objections when adopting the magistrate judge’s dismissal recommendation.
“Plaintiff has simply cut and pasted the same arguments—verbatim—previously presented to and rejected by the magistrate judge.”
Cautions
At the pleading stage, Cain preserved hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims supported by detailed allegations involving supervisors, while dismissing narrower disparate-discipline and disparate-investigation theories.
“given the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that one supervisor allegedly hung two separate nooses within the hospital in areas known to be frequented by Plaintiff and other employees and that a second supervisor referred to Plaintiff as a ‘slave’ in the presence of other staff, doctors, and colleagues, the court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled alleged facts to justify an inference that Defendant’s conduct was ‘sufficiently pervasive or severe’ to support a claim for a hostile work environment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“only Plaintiffs' claim of unconscionability is dismissed. Accordingly, Defendant TD Bank's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”
“Gault's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 39) and motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to dismiss (ECF No. 26) are GRANTED.”
“The court grants the motion to reconsider, and issues this order, which supersedes the court's order dated August 14, 2014.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims for disparate discipline and disparate investigation. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s defamation claim, Title VII wrongful termination claim, Title VII hostile work environment claim, Title VII disparate hours, scheduling, and compensation claim, and Title VII retaliation claim.”
“The motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 43), is hereby DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant Green Tree’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED”
“Defendants Maintain It Now, LLC, and James Dean’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 59) is also GRANTED”
“Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED.”
“GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional class certification”
“Resource’s motion to dismiss the third party complaint (ECF No. 32) is, therefore, granted.”
“Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.”
“it is the judgment of this court that the decision of the Bankruptcy Court be affirmed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 288 days (N = 8).
The sampled docket spans consumer-credit suits, employee-benefit disputes, Social Security appeals, employment discrimination, prisoner civil-rights and habeas cases, trademark and contract matters, and a long-running False Claims Act case. The eight-case duration cohort is illustrative rather than a complete measure of the judge's caseload.
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 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 9 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 11 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Cain: 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 Cain with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cain, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cain's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace