SKINNER v. DEREBAIL et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 21 Motion for TRO; adopting 27 Report and Recommendations. Ordered by U.S. District Judge W. Louis Sands on 12/16/2013. (bcl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
MANASSEH ROYDREGO SKINNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. DEREBAIL,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No.: 1:13-CV-44 (WLS)

ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.
17) and a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff
filed August 21, 2013 (Doc. 27).

Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the

Recommendation. (See generally Docket.)
I. Motion for Reconsideration
As the Eleventh Circuit noted 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 are within “the sound discretion of the district judge.” This Court’s
Local Rules address motions for reconsideration, providing in relevant part that:
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. Additionally, 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

1

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).
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order adopting Judge Langstaff’s April
17, 2013 Recommendation.

(See Docs. 14 & 17.)

In that recommendation, Judge

Langstaff recommended that Defendants Sproul, Lewis, and Haggerty be dismissed
because Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support the claims Plaintiff asserted
against those Defendants. (Doc. 6 at 4-5.) Plaintiff’s objection was overruled because it
contained only conclusory statements and did not sufficiently rebut Judge Langstaff’s
Recommendation. (See Docs. 9 & 14.)
The Court notes that the Order Plaintiff urges the Court to reconsider was issued
on May 31, 2013, and his Motion for Reconsideration was not filed until June 26, 2013.
(See Docs. 14 & 17.) Because the instant Motion was not filed within fourteen days from
the issuance of the Order, it does not comply with Local Rule 7.6. Also, Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate any changes in the law or facts, or that the Court made a clear
error of law. (See Doc. 17.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 17)
is DENIED.
II. Judge Langstaff’s September 20, 2013 Recommendation
In the Recommendation currently under review (Doc. 27), Judge Langstaff
recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. 21). “[A] preliminary injunction is warranted if the movant
demonstrates ‘(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying
case, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, (3) the
harm suffered by the movant in the absence of an injunction would exceed the harm

2

suffered by the opposing party if the injunction is issued, and (4) an injunction would
not disserve the public interest.’ ”

Odebrecht Constr., Inc. v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of

Transp., 715 F.3d 1268, 1273-74 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Grizzle v. Kemp, 634 F.3d 1314,
1320 (11th Cir. 2011)). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits.
Accordingly, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff’s August 21,
2013 Recommendation (Doc. 27) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of
this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein, together with the
reasons stated and conclusions reached herein. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 21) is DENIED. As noted above,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 17) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of December, 2013.

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

3