Martin v. McDaniel et al.

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING 57 Request for Enbanc Ruling on Magistrate Judges Err. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 4/11/2013. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JAMES M. MARTIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Lieutenant JOHNNY McDANIEL ,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-192 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s “Request for ‘Enbanc’ Ruling on
Magistrate Judges ‘Err,’” which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration.
(Doc. 57). 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).

The Plaintiff has alleged no intervening change in the law and has presented no
new evidence not previously available to the parties. Instead, the Plaintiff continues to
argue that he was not allowed to file an emergency grievance or a formal grievance
after his alleged assault by another inmate. However, the Plaintiff filed an informal
grievance regarding the incident, but he signed the returned form acknowledging that
the matter was unresolved and did not request a formal grievance. (Doc. 38-3 at 2).
Therefore, the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the Court’s
previous ruling was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED.1
SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of April, 2013.

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

1

The Plaintiff also includes in his Motion what appears to be a Complaint against Counselor Fitzgerald,
who was not previously named as a defendant in this case. (Doc. 57 at 8). A Motion for Reconsideration
is not the appropriate vehicle to add a new claim against a new defendant.