DANIELS v. AFLOA/JACC

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING 8 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 12/17/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WENDY RENA DANIELS, on behalf of
CLARISSA DANIELL DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AFLOA/JACC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-354 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 8) of the
Court’s Order dismissing her case (Doc. 6). The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court
dismissed the Plaintiff’s case because her medical malpractice claim was time-barred
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(b). (Doc. 6).
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. Further, “[i]n the interests of finality and
conservation of scarce resources, reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary
remedy which is to be employed sparingly.” DePass v. Unum, 2012 WL 135394, * 1
(S.D. Fla.) (citing United States v. Bailey, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1267 (M.D. Fla. 2003)).
“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.

2010) (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, 1222–23 (M.D. Ga.
1997).
Here, the Plaintiff has not met her burden. She has alleged no intervening
change in the law, has presented no new evidence not previously available to the
parties, and the Court is not persuaded its previous ruling was clearly erroneous.
Though the Court understands she, as a pro se plaintiff, was unsure how to file a claim
or a timely one, this reason cannot form the basis for granting her motion for
reconsideration. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The
Plaintiff’s request for a telephone conference is moot.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of December, 2014.

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

-2-