RIDLEY v. FORD
ORDER DENYING 97 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE MARC T TREADWELL on 6/7/2021. (kat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
EDWARD TYRONE RIDLEY,
Warden BENJAMIN FORD,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-151 (MTT)
On March 22, 2021, the Court granted the Respondent’s motion to dismiss
Petitioner Edward Tyrone Ridley’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. Doc.
95. Further, the Court denied a certificate of appealability. Id. Ridley now moves for
reconsideration but does not explain why he believes reconsideration is appropriate.
Nor does his notice of appeal identify what issues he intends to raise on appeal.
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). Here, Ridley has not identified any change in the law, newly
discovered evidence, or clear error in the Court’s previous Order. Accordingly, his
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 97) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of June, 2021.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?