Smith v. HOUSTON COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING 32 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 11/18/2103. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DARLENE SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-62 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc.
32). 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).
Here, the Plaintiff has not met her burden. She 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. The
Plaintiff asks for this Court to reconsider its Order granting the Defendants summary
judgment because she did not have enough time to file her motion for summary
judgment, respond to the Defendants’ motion, or find an attorney after her counsel
withdrew. Contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertions, the Court has extended discovery and
the date to file dispositive motions on multiple occasions to allow her time to find
counsel. (Docs. 19, 21, 24). Thus, the Plaintiff has had ample time to find counsel and
respond to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s
motion is DENIED.  
SO ORDERED, this 18th day of November, 2013.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT