HUEY v. DANFORTH et al

Filing 86

ORDER denying 85 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 9/23/2013. (nbp)

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

BRUCE WAYNE HUEY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-97 (HL)

v.
TED PHILBIN, CECILIA LINDER, and
WAYNE RIZER,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objections to the Court’s Order (Doc. 85),
listed in CM/ECF as “Motion for Reconsideration.” This is Plaintiff’s second
motion for reconsideration. Under Local Rules 7.6 and 7.7 as well as Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as frivolous.
In consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will assume that he
had not yet received the Court’s Order of September 17, 2013 (Doc. 84) when he
filed this most recent frivolous motion. Therefore, the Court refrains from
imposing sanctions at this time but reiterates its warning concerning frivolous
motions. Filings that contain nothing more than wild accusations, irrelevant
arguments, and conclusory allegations will be dealt with severely.
The history for this case on CM/ECF contains no evidence for a “Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend Complaint” filed on or about July 19, 2013. Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint (Doc. 22) was accepted by this Court in an Order dated October 29,
2012 (Doc. 23), although the claims made in the amended complaint were
eventually dismissed. A later Motion to Amend (Doc. 44) by Plaintiff was denied
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) as untimely and prejudicial in an
Order dated July 22, 2013. (Doc. 70).

SO ORDERED, this the 23rd day of September, 2013.

s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

scr

2