Adams v. Chapman et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying 52 Motion to Vacate. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 6/29/2010. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA M ACON DIVISION ALLE N ALPHONZO ADAMS, P etitioner, v. BRUCE CHATMAN, Respondent. OR D E R On June 16, 2010, the Court entered an order accepting United States M agis trate Judge Claude W . Hicks Jr.'s recommendations to grant Respondent's M otion to Dismiss, to dismiss Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus as untimely, and to dismiss Petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction. Eleven other motions filed by Petitioner were also denied in that order. Judgment dismissing the habeas petition was filed on June 17, 2010. P etitioner has now filed a Motion to Vacate the Court's June 16, 2010 order, w hic h the Court will treat as a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates that: (1) there has been an intervening c han g e 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) rec ons ideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injus tic e. McCoy v. Macon W ater Auth. ,966 F.Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D.Ga.1997). CA S E NO. 5:09-CV-306 (HL) 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Petitioner's Motion raises no relevant legal or factual issues that were not previous ly considered by the Court. He has not alleged an intervening change in law, has presented no new evidence, and has not show that reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Instead, Petitioner has pres ented the Court with a rant in which he claims his case was "placed on a hit list for dismissal," that the Court's decision was racially motivated, and that he needs to be allowed to run the Court. Petitioner's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 52) is denied.

S O ORDERED, this the 29th day of June, 2010. s/ Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE m bh

2