Wright v. Henderson et al

Filing 48

ORDER DENYING 47 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 8/15/2012. (tlh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION WILLIE WRIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DR. BARRY HENDERSON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-201 (MTT) ORDER 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 added). 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 -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?