ALLAH v. GRAMIAK et al

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING 62 Report and Recommendations, DENYING 47 Motion for Summary Judgment(); DENYING 48 Motion to Amend/Correct; and GRANTING 50 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 12/18/2015. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
ALLAH QUDDOOS ALLAH a/k/a
ELIJAH THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANN TYNDAL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-186 (MTT)

ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles denied the Plaintiff’s motions to
compel discovery and stay the case (Docs. 56; 59) and recommends denying the
Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 48) and motion for summary judgment (Doc. 47) and
granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 50). (Doc. 62). The
Plaintiff has objected to the order denying the motion to compel discovery and the
Recommendation. (Doc. 66).
I.

The Plaintiff’s Objection to the Order Denying the Motion to Compel

The Court construes the Plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order
denying the motion to compel discovery 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).
The Plaintiff has not met this burden. He has not alleged an intervening change
in the law, nor has he presented new evidence previously unavailable to him.
Moreover, the Court is not persuaded the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was clearly
erroneous. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. 66).
II. The Plaintiff’s Objection to the Recommendation
The Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Plaintiff’s
motion to amend and motion for summary judgment be denied and that the Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment be granted. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying
the Plaintiff’s motion to amend as futile because the claims he seeks to add are barred
by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 62 at 5-8). The Magistrate Judge recommends
denying the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting the Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment because “it is clear from the undisputed facts … that
Defendant was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical need.” (Id. at
14).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has considered the Plaintiff’s
objection and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the
Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects. The Court has reviewed the
Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and

-2-

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and
made the order of this Court. The Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 48) is DENIED as
futile. The Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 47) is DENIED, and the
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 50) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this 18th day of December, 2015.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-