THOMAS v. HUMPHREY et al

Filing 99

ORDER ADOPTING 97 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING 90 Motion for Summary Judgment; and DENYING 95 Motion for Order to Show Cause (construed as a motion to appoint counsel). Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 1/23/2015. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
LAMARCUS THOMAS,

Plaintiff,
v.
EDWARD HALE BURNSIDE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-108 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle.
(Doc. 97). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 90) and denying the Plaintiff’s motion for order to show cause
(Doc. 95), which the Magistrate Judge construes as a motion to appoint counsel. The
Plaintiff has not objected to the Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the
Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and
made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 90) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s motion for order to show cause
(Doc. 95), construed as a motion to appoint counsel, is DENIED.1

1

On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a letter in which he first asks whether his § 2254 habeas
corpus petition has been processed and then asks how the Court would respond if he were to
refile his motion for a preliminary injunction since it was denied. (Doc. 83). To the extent the
letter can be construed as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order adopting the
Recommendation denying his motion for a preliminary injunction (Docs. 73; 79), that motion is
DENIED. “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

SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of January, 2015.

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

a clear error of law.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga.) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The Plaintiff has not shown any of the above factors that would
warrant reconsideration.
-2-