Filing 39

ORDER DENYING 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/3/2017. (tlh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION EARL BRYANT, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-341 (MTT) ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Earl Bryant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.36) of the Court’s Judgement (Doc. 35) and Order (Doc. 34), which dismissed his claims against Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) for failure to state a claim and PHH and Citigroup for lack of personal jurisdiction as well as denied various motions by Bryant. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 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 (emphasis added). “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.) (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 Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997). Bryant has not met this burden. He has not alleged an intervening change in the law, nor has he presented new evidence previously unavailable to him. Moreover, the Court is not persuaded its order was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, Bryant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of March, 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?