GHOLSTON v. HUMPHREY

Filing 53

ORDER denying 48 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 11/30/12 (lap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DEXTER SHAW,
Plaintiff,
v.

CARL HUMPHREY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-97(MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Dexter Shaw’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 48)
of the Court’s Order adopting Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles’ Recommendation to
consolidate Plaintiff Deante Gholston’s case with several other similar cases, including
Shaw’s (Doc. 29). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
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 chance 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 quotations 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, 1223 (M.D. Ga. 1997).
Shaw contends the Court failed to consider his Objection when making the
determination to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in Gholston v.
Humphrey, 5:12-cv- 97. However, Shaw was not a “party” to Gholston v. Humphrey at
the time the Court ruled on the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C):
[T]he magistrate judge shall file his proposed findings and
recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy
shall forthwith be mailed to all parties.
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may
serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and
recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection
is made.
(emphasis added). Though the Court did consider a non-party’s objection that was
docketed in Gholston v. Humphrey, nothing in 28 U.S.C. § 636 suggests that the
Court is required to consider objections made by non-parties. Thus, it is not a clear
error of law for the Court to not consider Shaw’s Objection to a Recommendation in a
case that he was not yet a part of.
Further, even if the Court were to consider Shaw’s Objection to the
Recommendation it would not change the outcome of the Court’s decision. It is clear
to the Court that these cases should not be certified as a class action suit, and,
instead should be consolidated. Further, Shaw contends that the Court is “letting
Inmate Gholston represent” all of the plaintiffs, when this is not the case.
2

(Doc. 28

at 2). Consolidating the cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)
allows cases with common questions of law and fact to be consolidated onto one
docket in order to avoid unnecessary costs or delay and to prevent conflicting
outcomes in cases involving similar legal and factual issues. This does not prevent
Shaw, or any other plaintiff in these cases, from pursuing his claims against the
Defendants. In fact, the Court does not expect, and nor should Shaw or any other
plaintiff, Gholston to represent the other consolidated plaintiffs in this matter.
Because Shaw has not met his burden, the Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of November, 2012.

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

3