SMITH v. HUMPHREY et al

Filing 93

ORDER denying 90 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 11/21/12 (lap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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 Objection” (Doc. 90) to Magistrate Judge
Charles H. Weigle’s orders (Docs. 81, 82) denying his Motion for Funds to Hire an
Investigator (Doc. 74), Motion for Discovery (Doc. 73), and Motion to Appoint Expert
(Doc. 75). The Court construes the “Plaintiff’s Objection” as a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s orders.
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 Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997).
Here, the Plaintiff has not met this burden. He has not alleged an intervening
change in the law nor presented new evidence previously not available to him, and the
Court is not persuaded the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous. Moreover,
the Plaintiff concedes he has now been provided with the information for which he
requested a private investigator, and the Plaintiff will be given ample opportunity to
obtain any necessary medical records through discovery should the Defendants’
pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38) be denied.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 21st day of November, 2012.

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