OWENS v. HARMON et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 2/20/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

JAMES OWENS, III
Plaintiff,
v.
Deputy JEROME HARMON, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-174(MTT)

ORDER
The Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the Court’s Order (Doc. 19)
denying his previous motion for reconsideration and his motion for injunctive relief. Doc.
20.
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. “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.) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
The Court must liberally construe the filings of the Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro
se. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Mays v.
United States, 817 F.3d 728, 731 n.2 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Given Mays’s motion to vacate

and supplemental notice were filed pro se, we construe them liberally.” (citation
omitted)). But even liberally construed, the Plaintiff’s motion does not demonstrate any
intervening change in law, newly discovered evidence not previously available, or clear
error. Instead, the Plaintiff argues the same points the Court rejected in its previous
Order. The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 20) is accordingly DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of February, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

‐2‐