BRYANT v. CITIGROUP INC

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 13 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/14/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
EARL A. BRYANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIGROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-448 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 13) of the
Court’s April 3 Order dismissing his complaint for insufficient service of process
(Doc. 11). 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 shown a reason why his motion should be granted. In fact,
he does not even address the basis for the Court’s dismissal of his claims: his
insufficient service on Defendant Citigroup. He wants to proceed to discovery under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but this is not a sufficient ground for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 13) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 14th day of April, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT