SMITH v. HUMPHREY et al

Filing 137

ORDER DENYING 135 Motion for Reconsideration and DENYING 136 Motion for Relief. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 3/11/2013. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
LESTER J. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARL HUMPHREY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-15 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 135) and
Motion for Relief (Doc. 136) filed in response to this Court’s Order (Doc. 132) adopting
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 118). The Court construes
the Plaintiff’s motions as a combined request for reconsideration.
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 (emphasis added). “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 Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997).

The Plaintiff has not met this burden. He has not alleged an intervening change
in the law, nor has he presented new evidence previously unavailable to him.
Moreover, the Court is not persuaded its ruling was clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of March, 2013.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT