WILLIAMS v. TOOLE et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 10 Motion for Reconsideration re 6 Order. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 3/1/2012. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
RICHARD LEE WILLIAMS,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT KILGORE,
)
WARDEN ROBERT TOOLE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-319(MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Richard Lee Williams’ Motion for
Reconsideration. (Doc. 10). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
On September 23, 2011, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc.
6). The Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its decision.1 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

1
The Court acknowledges that the Plaintiff also seeks leave to amend his initial complaint in
order to adequately state a claim. A post-judgment Motion for Reconsideration is an improper
mechanism to attempt to amend his complaint.

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. 10).
SO ORDERED, this 1st day of March, 2012.

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

-2