BARFIELD v. GORE et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 81 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 9/14/15 (lap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DANIEL BARFIELD,
Plaintiff
v.
Nurse MARY GORE

Defendant
_________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL No: 5:14-cv-00004-CAR-CHW

PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983
BEFORE THE U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 6, 2014, Plaintiff Daniel Barfield, a state prisoner currently confined at the
Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison (“GDCP”) in Jackson, Georgia, filed a pro se civil
rights complaint in this Court seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. According to
Plaintiff’s Complaint, the present action arises out of Defendants’ alleged refusal to provide
Plaintiff with prescribed eye glasses. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Doc. 3.
Discovery commenced on March 9, 2015, after the Court entered an Order (Doc. 43)
adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. 33) on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 10), allowing Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference and retaliation claims to continue but
dismissing Plaintiff’s deprivation of property claim (Doc. 43). The discovery period ended on July
31, 2015, pursuant to an extension of discovery granted by the Court on July 1, 2015. Doc. 66.
Plaintiff filed three discovery related motions: a Motion to Compel (Doc. 65); a second Motion for
Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 69); and a “Motion to Certify” (Doc. 70). The
Magistrate Judge denied these motions on July 23, 2015. Doc. 71.

Plaintiff then filed two Motions for Reconsideration (Docs. 72, 77) of the Court’s decision,
as well as another Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 73). Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s first
two Motions (Doc. 75), and also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 76). The Magistrate Judge issued an Order construing both Motions for
Reconsideration as motions for additional discovery, and subsequently denied the requests. The
Magistrate Judge also extended the deadline for dispositive motions to September 18, 2015. Doc.
80.
Now Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Clarification” which this Court construes as a
Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order. Doc. 81. Motions for
reconsideration of a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial motion are reviewed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A), which provides that a district judge “may reconsider any
pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's
order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
Here, Plaintiff fails to show that the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motions
for additional discovery was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff’s Motion simply
restates his request for subpoenas, which the Magistrate Judge has addressed on three occasions,
as well as requests additional information he did not seek during the lengthy discovery period. The
record indicates that the Magistrate Judge’s decisions were reasonable and consistent with this
Court’s responsibility for oversight of discovery in pro se cases. Thus, no grounds exist for
reconsideration, and Plaintiff’s Motions for Clarification (Doc. 81) is DENIED.
The parties are further advised that the deadline for dispositive motions remains
unchanged.

2

SO ORDERED, this 14th day of September, 2015.

S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3