Azubuko v. Aspire Visa, et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 24 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 5/6/11 (lap)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION CHUKWUMA AZUBUKO, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ASPIRE : VISA et al., : : Defendants. : ____________________________________: 5:03-CV-30 (CAR) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 24] wherein Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order [Doc. 23] dismissing his Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), filed seven and a half years after this Court entered its original order dismissing Plaintiff’s case, as untimely. It is clear that reconsideration is inappropriate in this case. Local Rule 7.6 contemplates motions like the one at bar but warns that “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.” Such motions are only appropriate if the movant can show: “(1) there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) new evidence has been discovered that was not previously available to the parties at the time the original order was entered, or (3) reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Wallace v. Georgia Department of Transp., 2006 WL 1582409 * 2 (M.D.Ga. June 6, 2006) (slip copy) (citing McCoy v. Macon Water Auth., 966 F.Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D.Ga.1997)). “[A] motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue an issue the Court has once determined.” Id. (quoting Am. Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F.Supp.2d. 1337, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (quotation and citation omitted). Inasmuch, “[c]ourt opinions are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.” Id. Plaintiff’s Motion fails to meet any of the standards discussed above and is utterly without merit. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 24] is thus DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 6th day of May, 2011. S/ C. Ashley Royal C. ASHLEY ROYAL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SSH 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?