BRADLEY et al v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING 28 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 12/10/2013. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
PAUL E. BRADLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-180 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ motion. (Doc. 28). The motion is
styled as an objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Because this case was not referred to a magistrate judge, the Court
construes the motion as a 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.) (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).

To the extent the motion urges the Court to reconsider its September 18th Order
(Doc. 22) granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, it is untimely because it was filed
more than 14 days after entry of the Court’s Order.1 See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. To the
extent the motion urges the Court to reconsider its November 12th Order (Doc. 27)
denying the Plaintiffs’ Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment, the Plaintiffs have not
met their burden. They have not shown an intervening change in the law, that new
evidence was discovered which was previously unavailable, or that the Court made a
clear error of law. Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 28) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of December, 2013.

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

1
The Plaintiffs filed their motion on November 22nd.

-2-