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)

Download PDF
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-

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?