Dollar v. Carter et al

Filing 79

ORDER DENYING 73 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 11/17/2011. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WESLEY EUGENE DOLLAR,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN ALAN CARTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-208 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Wesley Eugene Dollar’s Motion
for Judgment as a Matter of Law or Jury Trial. (Doc. 73).1 On July 26, 2011, the Court
adopted the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge granting the Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss because the Plaintiff’s claims had already been adjudicated in the Superior
Court of Wilcox County, Georgia. The Plaintiff has since filed two Motions for
Reconsideration (Docs. 57, 64) both of which were denied by the Court. The Plaintiff’s
latest motion, although styled as a “Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or Jury
Trial,” appears to be a third Motion for Reconsideration, because the Motion seeks to
overturn the July 26, 2011 Order.2

1
Although, as a general matter, the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the district court of
jurisdiction over all issues involved in the appeal, it does not prevent the district court from
taking action “in furtherance of the appeal.” Doe v. Bush, 261 F.3d 1037, 1064 (11th Cir. 2001);
Mahone v. Hammond, 326 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2003). Thus, the district court retains
jurisdiction after the filing of a notice of appeal “to entertain and deny” this Motion. Mahone, 326
F.3d at 1179-80.
2

The Motion also states that the Court is “acting with disinformation and should disqualify or
recuse [itself] from the Plaintiff’s civil action case” among other allegations. (Doc. 73).

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 its previous ruling was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. 73).
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2011.

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

bnw

-2-