HULEY v. MASSEE et al

Filing 95

ORDER DENYING re 93 RESPONSE in Opposition filed by TRAVISE HULEY, construed by the Court as a Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 7/18/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
TRAVISE HULEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sheriff BILL MASSEE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-32 (MTT)

ORDER
On February 21, 2018, the Court adopted United States Magistrate Judge
Stephen Hyles’s Recommendation that Defendants Crystal Bell and Paul Stephen
Buczynksy’s motions for summary judgment be granted. Doc. 85. And judgment was
entered in the Defendants’ favor on February 22, 2018. Doc. 87. Plaintiff Travise Huley
has now filed his “Second Objection to Summary Judgment and Order.” Doc. 93. The
Court liberally construes this as a motion to reconsider the Court’s adoption of the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants. 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, “[r]econsideration of a
previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Bingham v.
Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga.) (internal 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).
Here, Huley objects to the grant of summary judgment because he claims he was
not served with a copy of that motion and was never able to review it. Doc. 93 at 1-2.
But, from the record, it is clear that Huely was served with a copy of the
Recommendation because he filed an objection in response, and, therefore, he was
aware of the summary judgment motion and the reasoning behind the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation that it be granted. Doc. 83. Notably, Huley did not argue in
that objection that he had not been able to review the motion for summary judgment.
See generally Doc. 83. Regardless, Huley has raised no change in the law, newly
discovered evidence, or clear error in the Court’s previous order. Accordingly, the
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 93) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 18th day of July, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2