JORDAN v. STATE OF GEORGIA et al

Filing 70

ORDER denying 55 Motion for Reconsideration; denying as moot 56 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying as moot 57 Motion for Service of Process;denying as moot 59 Motionfor the Court to Issue an Order on the Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 7/29/2020. (aks)

Case 7:18-cv-00061-HL-TQL Document 70 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 4

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

CARTARVIS JORDAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 7:18-CV-61 (HL)

STATE OF GEORIA, et al.
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Cartarvis Jordan’s motion for reconsideration
(Doc. 55). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s August 19, 2019 Order,
dismissing Plaintiff’s case. (Docs. 53, 54). In its Order, the Court adopted the
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff. The Magistrate
Judge recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted
because Defendants had not been aware of the threat Ricky Upshaw posed to
Plaintiff; Defendants acted reasonably when responding to the attack on Plaintiff;
Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; and Plaintiff had an adequate
opportunity for discovery. (Doc. 49). Plaintiff argues now that the Court erred
because Defendants failed to comply with discovery and Plaintiff can produce
witnesses to sustain his claims. For reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.

Case 7:18-cv-00061-HL-TQL Document 70 Filed 07/29/20 Page 2 of 4

I.

DISCUSSION

The Court may grant a motion for reconsideration only if the motion presents
“newly-discovered evidence” or points to “manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v.
King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116,
1119 (11th Cir. 1999)). A motion for reconsideration cannot be used “to relitigate
old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior
to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d
757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). Courts should deny a motion for reconsideration that
“[does] nothing but ask the district court to reexamine an unfavorable ruling.”
Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010). The Court
is not to “[r]econsider[] the merits of a judgment, absent a manifest error of law or
fact.” Id.
Plaintiff’s concerns regarding Defendants’ compliance with discovery does
not demonstrate an error by this Court. (Doc. 55). Plaintiff previously raised these
same concerns in his objections to the Magistrate’s Recommendation. This Court
adopted the Recommendation in full and denied Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff’s
motion now seeks to relitigate his discovery concerns. Furthermore, the Magistrate
Judge twice denied Plaintiff’s motions to compel, on January 31, 2019 and March
25, 2019, explaining that Plaintiff failed to first confer with Defendants to obtain the
evidence he sought. (Docs. 36, 43). Three-and-a-half months passed before the
Magistrate Judge entered his Recommendation on July 9, 2019. (Doc. 55). Plaintiff
2

Case 7:18-cv-00061-HL-TQL Document 70 Filed 07/29/20 Page 3 of 4

did not file another motion seeking additional discovery during that three-and-ahalf-month period. Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s arguments regarding discovery
now is inappropriate.
Plaintiff also indicates that he can produce witnesses to testify to
Defendants’ failure to perform their duties. Plaintiff does not indicate whether these
witnesses amount to newly discovered evidence. He has not explained why these
witnesses’ statements were not previously presented in the evidence. Without
more information, the Court cannot discern whether these witnesses would affect
the result of this litigation. Reconsideration on these grounds is inappropriate.
II.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has neither presented newly discovered evidence nor demonstrated
error committed by this Court. Plaintiff raises the same arguments that the Court
previously rejected, and he is too vague about what evidence he may be able to
produce

to

warrant

reconsideration.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. 55). Plaintiff’s remaining pending motions are
DISMISSED as moot. (Docs. 56, 57, 59). 1

1

Plaintiff’s pending motions include a motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 56), a
motion for service of process (Doc. 57), and a motion for the Court to issue an
order on the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 59).
3

Case 7:18-cv-00061-HL-TQL Document 70 Filed 07/29/20 Page 4 of 4

SO ORDERED, this 29th day of July, 2020.
s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
kac

4