MOSS v. KNOX et al

Filing 124

ORDER DENYING 89 Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's 84 Order denying 81 Motion to Amend. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 11/6/2017. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JEFFREY EDWARD MOSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN PRESCOTT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-10 (MTT)

ORDER
This case is presently before the Court on Plaintff Jeffrey Edward Moss’s Motion
to Reconsider (Doc. 89) this Court’s Order (Doc. 84) denying Moss’s Motion to Amend
(Doc. 81). 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. Indeed, “reconsideration of a previous
order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010
WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga.) (quotation marks and citation omitted). It “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.” Id. “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
Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997). The Court denied Moss’s
Motion to Amend (Doc. 81) because it was “duplicative of his previous allegations and
fail[ed] to state a claim for relief.” Doc. 84 at 3. Moss has raised no change in the law,

newly discovered evidence, or clear error to justify reconsideration of that order.
Accordingly, his Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 89) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this the 6th day of November, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-