Filing 14

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

Download PDF
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

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?