VERDI v. WILKINSON COUNTY GEORGIA et al
Filing
15
ORDER DENYING 13 Petitioner's Second Motion to Amend and Restate Civil Case and DENYING 14 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 1/31/2013. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
BILLIE JEAN VERDI,
Petitioner,
v.
WILKINSON COUNTY, GEORGIA,
JOHN W. ROBERTS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-488(MTT)
ORDER
Before the Court are the Petitioner’s Second Motion to Amend and Restate Civil
Case and Motion for Reconsideration. (Docs. 13 and 14). The Court’s January 9,
2013, Order dismissed the Petitioner’s Petition without prejudice for failing “to state an
arguable basis in law or fact for the relief it seeks.” (Doc. 8). The Petitioner moved to
restate on January 17, 2013 (Doc. 11), and the Court found that the Petitioner’s Motion
to Restate did not change the Court’s previous analysis of her Petition (Doc. 12).
First, with regard to the Petitioner’s Motion 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. “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 [her] 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 Petitioner has not met her burden. She has alleged no intervening
change in the law, has presented no new relevant evidence not previously available to
the parties, and the Court is not persuaded its previous ruling was clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, the Petitioner Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. 14). Further,
with regard to the Petitioner’s Second Motion to Restate, the Petitioner still fails to state
a legally cognizable claim. Nothing in the Petitioner’s proposed Amended Petition
changes the Court’s previous analysis. Therefore, the Petitioner’s Motion to Restate is
DENIED. (Doc. 13).
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of January, 2013.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?