GRAY v. Alvarez et al

Filing 62

ORDER denying 59 Motion for Reconsideration re 56 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Report and Recommendations Ordered by U.S. District Judge HUGH LAWSON on 12/17/2014 (aks)

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

WILLIAM RANDOLPH GRAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 7:13-CV-14 (HL)

OFFICER JOSH DONALDSON,
Defendant.

ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration.
(Doc. 59). On May 20, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q.
Langstaff entered a Recommendation granting in part and denying in part the
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Josh Donaldson (“Defendant”)
and his prior co-Defendant Tommy Sellars. (Doc. 55). Finding that the selfserving statements contained in Defendant’s brief without any evidentiary support
failed to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, Judge
Langstaff recommended that summary judgment as to Defendant be denied.
Defendant filed no objections to the Recommendation. This Court subsequently
entered an Order June 18, 2014, adopting the Recommendation. (Doc. 56).
Defendant now moves for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for
summary judgment.

Local Rule 7.6 provides that “[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be filed
as a matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. The “purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). A
motion for reconsideration generally will only be granted when there is “(1) an
intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, and (3)
the need to correct clear error of manifest injustice.” Id. “[A] motion for
reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue the issue the
Court has once determined.” Pennamon v. United Bank, 2009 WL 2355816, at *1
(M.D. Ga. July 28, 2009) (quoting Am. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood,
278 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2003)). When a party “believes it is
absolutely necessary to file a motion to reconsider an order or judgment, the
motion shall be filed with the Clerk of court within fourteen (14) days after entry of
the order.” M.D.Ga. L.R. 7.6.
As a threshold issue, Defendant’s motion is untimely. The Court entered
the order from which Defendant seeks relief on June 18, 2014. Defendant waited
just short of six months to file his motion for reconsideration. Further, Defendant
provides no basis under which the Court may grant his request and points to no
manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling. Rather, Defendant seeks only to
incorporate the contents of an affidavit that Defendant should have submitted
along with his motion for summary judgment. A motion for reconsideration is not
2

an appropriate tool to supplement the record with arguments Defendant should
have raised months ago. Defendant’s motion is accordingly denied.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of December, 2014.

s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

aks

3