Jackson v. Carlisle et al

Filing 66

ORDER DENYING 60 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 3/11/2011. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

CURTIS JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. BRAD CHRISTENSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-274(MTT)

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 60). The Plaintiff has requested this Court reconsider his Motion for Extension (Doc. 47), Motion to Stay (Doc. 48), and Motion to Compel (Doc. 49), which were all denied by United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, "Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice." M.D. Ga., L.R. 7.6. "Reconsideration is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates (1) that there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) that new evidence has been discovered which was not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or (3) that the court made a clear error of law." Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "In order to demonstrate clear error, the party moving for reconsideration must do more than simply restate his prior arguments, and any

arguments which the party inadvertently failed to raise earlier are deemed waived." McCoy v. Macon Water Authority, 966 F.Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997). Here, the Plaintiff has not met his burden. He has alleged no intervening change in the law, has presented no new evidence not previously available to the parties, and the Court is not persuaded that the Magistrate Judge's previous rulings were clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 11th day of March, 2011.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-