JOYNER v. WOODSPRING HOTELS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC

Filing 71

ORDER denying 51 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D. LAND on 12/19/2018 (tlf).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
DOROTHEA L. JOYNER,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

NATIONWIDE HOTEL MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC,

*

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-37 (CDL)

*
Defendant.
*
O R D E R
Dorothea L. Joyner moved for reconsideration of the Court’s
order denying her motion to recuse.
19, 2018), ECF No. 50.

See Order on Recusal (Sept.

Local Rule 7.6 provides that motions for

reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.
M.D. Ga. R. 7.6.
the

movant

Generally, such motions will only be granted if

demonstrates

that

(1)

there

was

an

intervening

development or change in controlling law, (2) new evidence has
been discovered, or (3) the court made a clear error of law or
fact.
2009).

Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1378 (M.D. Ga.
Here, Joyner asserts that the Court made a clear error of

fact in deciding her motion to recuse.

To “demonstrate clear

error, the party moving for reconsideration must do more than
simply

restate

[her]

prior

arguments”

dissatisfaction with the Court’s reasoning.”

or

[her]

McCoy v. Macon Water

Auth., 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1223 (M.D. Ga. 1997).

1

“vent

Joyner argues that the Court should reconsider its recusal
decision because she disagrees with the Court’s findings.

She

contends that, in the recusal order, the Court failed to consider
her

argument

that

the

undersigned’s

discussion

with

opposing

counsel during the scheduling conference created an appearance of
impropriety.
error

of

sufficient

Therefore, Joyner asserts, the Court made a clear

fact

when

facts

to

it

stated

that

she

“fail[ed]

. . . show

that

the

impartiality

undersigned might be reasonably questioned.”
2018), ECF No. 50.

to

allege
of

the

Order 2 (Sept. 19,

Because Joyner merely disputes the Court’s

conclusion that the undersigned’s actions during the scheduling
conference did not create an appearance of impropriety, she has
not pointed to a valid ground for reconsideration.

Therefore,

Joyner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 51) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of December, 2018.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2