GAINES vs ALLEN

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING 27 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/25/2018. (tlh)

N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
SAMUEL GAINES, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Warden MARTY ALLEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-474 (MTT)

ORDER
This case is presently before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 27) in which he requests that the Court reconsider and set
aside the final order and judgment entered in this case on September 17, 2018 (Doc.
25). The Plaintiff has filed a motion “requesting favorable ruling,” which the Court
construes as a motion for reconsideration. See McCoy v. Macon Water Auth., 966 F.
Supp. 1209, 1222 (M.D. Ga. 1997) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). Specifically, the
Plaintiff has moved the Court to reconsider its order (Doc. 25) denying the Plaintiff’s
motion for hearing (Doc. 24) and adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to
dismiss his complaint for failure to state a claim (Doc. 20). Doc. 27.
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. 2010) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). “[T]here must be a reason why the court should reconsider its
prior decision, and [the moving party] must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Sussman v.
Salem, Saxton & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). “[T]he [moving
party] must do more than simply restate his prior arguments[.]” The Plaintiff has
merely restated his former arguments in his motion for reconsideration, and he has
not shown any newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in the law, or that
the court made a clear error of law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 27) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of September, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT