MALONE VS HOUSTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING re 18 Response to Motion filed by BOBBY MALONE which Plaintiff requested be treated as a motion for reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 6/30/2017. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
BOBBY MALONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARNER ROBINS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-178 (MTT)

ORDER
On June 16, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Bobby Malone’s claims without
prejudice because the statute of limitations ran on them at least two decades ago. Doc.
17 at 3. On June 21, 2017, Plaintiff Bobby Malone filed a letter in response, which he
requested be treated “as a motion for reconsideration.” Doc. 18 at 1.
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). 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).

Malone seeks reconsideration on the ground that: “[His] Civil Rights were
violated by the legal establishments and [his] civil and Inalienable Rights were granted
by GOD, and have been violated by the courts.” Doc. 18 at 1. And: “[He] didn't know
that either of these rights had a time limit that barred justice being done.” This does not
warrant reconsideration. Malone’s claims are clearly barred by the statute of limitations.
Malone’s motion (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of June, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 2 -