GUMM v. JACOBS et al

Filing 131

ORDER DENYING 124 Motion to Vacate. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 2/16/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
Warden BRUCE CHATMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-41 (MTT)

ORDER
Waseem Daker has moved to vacate the Court’s Order (Doc. 103) adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. 100) to deny Daker’s motion to intervene
(Doc. 80). Doc. 124. Daker argues that the Court’s order “does not even address,
much less consider,” his objections to the Recommendation and therefore the Court
should vacate the Order (Doc. 103) pursuant to Rule 59(e) to correct the Court’s “clear
error and manifest injustice,” or, “alternatively, to modify said Order to explain which
objections it rejects and why it does so.” Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to move the Court to alter or
amend a final judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “The only grounds for granting a Rule
59 motion [is] newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” United
States v. Marion, 562 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to “relitigate old matters, raise
argument[s] or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th
Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court carefully reviewed Daker’s 47-page
objection (Doc. 101), made a de novo determination of the portions of the
Recommendation to which Daker objected, and accepted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and rejected Daker’s objections. Doc. 103.
Having done so, the Court was not required to explain why it rejected Daker’s
objections. Accordingly, Daker has presented no grounds for the Court to alter its
denial of Daker’s motion to intervene; Daker has certainly not demonstrated any “newlydiscovered evidence or manifest error of law or fact” to provide justification to grant
Daker’s motion, and the motion (Doc. 124) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 16th of February, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-