MASON v. GEORGE et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Doc. 39 , and the Court's Order denying Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 26] still stands. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 6/25/13. (wks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
HAROLD B. MASON,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CHARLES GEORGIA, KATHY
:
BATSON, and FLINT RIVERQUARIUM, :
:
Defendants.
:
:

CASE NO.: 1:12-CV-159 (WLS)

ORDER
On May 24, 2013, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 38.) On May 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Response to
Preliminary Injunction Denial.”

(Doc. 39.)

Construing Plaintiff’s response to the

Court’s Order as a Motion for Reconsideration, on June 11, 2013, Defendants filed a
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 44.) In reply to
Defendant’s response in opposition, Plaintiff stated that his response was not a Motion
for Reconsideration. (Doc. 45.) However, since the Court similarly construes Plaintiff’s
response to the Court’s Order as a Motion for Reconsideration, the Court will treat it as
such. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 39) is
DENIED.
As noted by the Eleventh Circuit in Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers
Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 805-06 (11th Cir. 1993), relief granted from motions
for reconsideration is within “the sound discretion of the district judge.” The Court’s
Local Rules also address motions for reconsideration, and provide, in relevant part:

1

7.6 MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION.
Motions for
Reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.
Whenever a party or attorney for a party believes it is absolutely necessary
to file a motion to reconsider an order or judgment, the motion shall be
filed with the Clerk of court within fourteen (14) days after entry of the
order or judgment.
M.D. Ga. Local R. 7.6. It is the longstanding practice of this Court to grant a motion for
reconsideration only when the movant timely demonstrates that either: (1) there has
been an intervening change in the law; (2) new and previously unavailable evidence has
been discovered through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the court made a clear
error of law. McCoy v. Macon Water Auth., 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga.
1997).
With these standards in mind, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate the existence of any of the three factors listed above. In his Motion for
Reconsideration, Plaintiff states that his Motion for Preliminary Injunction “was not
about child support deductions that were made as retaliation by defendants.” (Doc. 39
at 1.) Rather, Plaintiff states that his Motion for Injunction concerned: 1) Defendants
tampering with his time sheet so as to cause financial harm; 2) Defendants wrongfully
terminating him for a “Write-up based upon the New Year Staff Party and Start Time;”
and 3) “[D]efendants acknowledging they did not speak with [him] on the stated
altercation” for a “matter that is being filed in the Superior Court as of May 30th, 2013.”
(Id. at 1-2.)
After reviewing these “clarifications” about what Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief really concerned, the Court finds them to be insufficient for overturning the
Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

“Additional facts

and arguments that should have been raised in the first instance are not appropriate

2

grounds for a motion for reconsideration.” Groover v. Michelin North Am., Inc., 90 F.
Supp. 2d 1236, 1256 (M.D. Ala. 2000). The Court addressed Plaintiff’s initial allegations
in the only legal framework likely applicable to the case at bar—a Title VII retaliation
claim—and found the allegations insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff has offered no
arguments to make the Court reconsider this denial. He has simply offered additional
facts that in no way address the Court’s stated concerns about the legal insufficiency of
his Title VII retaliation claim. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration (Doc. 39) is DENIED, and the Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 26) still stands.
SO ORDERED, this 25th day of June, 2013.

/s/ W. Louis Sands
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3