TOWNES v. DAVIS et al
ORDER denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 11/14/2023. (aks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Civil Action No. 7:23-CV-62 (HL)
HEATHER DAVIS, et al.,
Before the Court is Plaintiff Darian Townes’ Motion for Reconsideration.
(Doc. 18). On August 31, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q.
Langstaff recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. (Doc. 11). Judge Langstaff concluded, in part, that
Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable in
cases filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judge Langstaff found that to the
extent Plaintiff’s claims were not time barred, Plaintiff nevertheless failed to state
a claim for a denial of due process as Plaintiff has no liberty interest in being
placed into a work release program or in his classification within the prison
system. Plaintiff’s Compliant also failed to include specific allegations of allegedly
unlawful conduct by any of the named Defendants.
Plaintiff objected to the Recommendation. (Doc. 12). After conducting a de
novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which Plaintiff objected,
the Court adopted the Recommendation and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint
without prejudice. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that decision.
Local Rule 7.6 warns litigants that “Motions for Reconsideration shall not
be filed as a matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. A motion for
reconsideration is appropriate when the moving party can show: “(1) there has
been an intervening change in the law, (2) new evidence has been discovered
that was not previously available to the parties at the time the original order was
entered, or (3) reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice.” Bryant v. Carter, No. 5:09-CV-281 (HL), 2010 WL
2640600, at *1 (M.D. Ga. June 29, 2010) (quoting Pennamon v. United Bank, No.
5:09-CV-169 (CAR), 2009 WL 2355816, at *1 (M.D. Ga. July 28, 2009)). “[A]
motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue an
issue the Court has once determined. Court opinions are not intended as mere
first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.”
Wallace v. Ga. Dep’t of Trans., No. 7:04-CV-78 (HL), 2006 WL 1582409, at *2
(M.D. Ga. June 6, 2006) (quoting Am. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood,
278 F. Supp 2d. 1337, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2003)).
Plaintiff states that he “has submitted . . . all evidence to the best of his
ability and knowledge” and that “[a]ll grounds submitted . . . are supported
according to the available material in [the] prison[‘]s library.” (Doc. 18, p. 1).
Plaintiff has not otherwise pointed to any error in law or fact committed by the
Court which would support revision of the Court’s prior decision. Finding no basis
to grant Plaintiff the relief requested, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of November, 2023.
s/ Hugh Lawson________________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
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?