HUEY v. DANFORTH et al

Filing 92

ORDER denying 87 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge Hugh Lawson on 12/18/2013. (nbp)

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

BRUCE WAYNE HUEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-97 (HL)

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

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Objections to the Court’s Order (Doc. 87),
listed in CM/ECF as “Motion for Reconsideration.” Plaintiff asks the Court to
reconsider its earlier order denying his Motion for Clerk to Refile Civil Action
Under the Constitutional Misc. Green File (Doc. 81). The motion for
reconsideration is an objectively frivolous pleading for it “lacks an arguable basis
either in fact or law.” See Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Plaintiff’s legal citations are
entirely unrelated to the action he requests, which is misguided on its face. There
is no such thing as a “Constitutional Misc. Green File” in the Court’s docketing
system. The motion is denied.
In light of Plaintiff’s incarcerated status and the fact that this is a pro se
pleading, the Court will be long-suffering with him and assume that the Court’s

earlier orders warning against further frivolous motions passed this one in the
mail. However, Plaintiff should be on notice that the Court will not view favorably
future motions that lack a factual or relevant legal basis.

SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of December, 2013.

s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

scr

2