Wright v. Henderson et al
ORDER DENYING 47 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 8/15/2012. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DR. BARRY HENDERSON, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-201 (MTT)
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
(Doc. 47). 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.) (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 Auth., 966 F.Supp. 1209, 1223 (M.D. Ga. 1997) (emphasis
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 its previous ruling was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of August, 2012.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?