SANFORD v. ROBINS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING 22 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 12/7/2012. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MICHAEL SANFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBINS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-306 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Michael Sanford’s “Motion for Rule 60 Relief
From Judgment.” (Doc. 22). Sanford asks the Court to reconsider its November 20,
2012, Order that dismissed his case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. §§ 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). (Doc. 20).
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 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 not alleged an intervening
change in the law nor presented new evidence previously not available to him, and the
Court is not persuaded its previous ruling was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of December, 2012.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-