Hunter v. Atlanta Public Schools

Filing 55

ORDER denying 52 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge J. P. Boulee on 8/2/21. (ceo)

Case 1:18-cv-00869-JPB Document 55 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
MARIETHA Y. HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:18-cv-00869-JPB

ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Marietha Hunter’s (“Hunter”)
Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”). ECF No. 52. After due consideration of
the Motion, the Court finds as follows:
I.

BACKGROUND

Hunter’s original complaint alleged numerous claims against Defendant
Atlanta Public Schools (“APS”), including under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, the Age Discrimination Employment Act, the Georgia Whistleblower Act
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). All claims, except those
brought under the ADA, were previously dismissed, and Hunter was granted leave
to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).
APS thereafter moved to dismiss the SAC. Hunter’s response to APS’
motion consisted of a three-page “letter brief” that provided no argument or

Case 1:18-cv-00869-JPB Document 55 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 4

citation of authority in support of her ADA claims. The magistrate judge
recommended dismissal of the SAC with prejudice.
After conducting a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation,1 the Court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
dismissed the SAC with prejudice (“Dismissal Order”).
Hunter now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal order, arguing
that “(i) the Court erred in drawing all significant inferences against [Hunter] and
. . . (ii) dismissal with prejudice is manifest injustice to the extent that [APS’]
mischaracterization of the allegations included in the SAC caused the Court to
dismiss [Hunter’s] . . . claims.”
II.

DISCUSSION

“Courts may grant relief under Rule 59(e) or Local Rule 7.2E only if the
moving party clears a high hurdle.” Chesnut v. Ethan Allen Retail, Inc., 17 F.
Supp. 3d 1367, 1370 (N.D. Ga. 2014). Indeed, “[t]he only grounds for granting a

The Court declined to consider Hunter’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation because none of the arguments set forth therein were made
before the magistrate judge. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th
Cir. 2009) (stating that “a district court has discretion to decline to consider a
party’s argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate
judge”).
1

2

Case 1:18-cv-00869-JPB Document 55 Filed 08/02/21 Page 3 of 4

Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.”
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007).
Similarly, Local Rule 7.2(E) dictates that “[m]otions for reconsideration
shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice” and may be filed only when
“absolutely necessary.” “Reconsideration is only ‘absolutely necessary’ where
there is: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change
in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact.” Bryan v.
Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1259 (N.D. Ga. 2003).
Thus, “neither Rule 59(e) nor Local Rule 7.2E affords a dissatisfied party an
opportunity to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment, introduce novel legal theories, or
repackage familiar arguments to test whether the Court will change its mind.”
Chesnut, 17 F. Supp. 3d at 1370. A motion for reconsideration is not “an
opportunity to show the court how it ‘could have done it better.’” Bryan, 246 F.
Supp. 2d at 1259.
Here, Hunter’s Motion offers arguments that were not raised before or
considered by the magistrate judge and introduces allegations that were not set
forth in the SAC. She had an opportunity to make those arguments in opposition
to APS’ motion to dismiss and allege those facts in her SAC. She did not. Instead,
3

Case 1:18-cv-00869-JPB Document 55 Filed 08/02/21 Page 4 of 4

her letter brief opposing APS’ motion to dismiss contained no argument and cited
no authority, and her second amended complaint failed to adequately plead her
claims, even after the Court identified the deficiencies for her and gave her an
opportunity to correct them.
Under these circumstances, there is no basis for reconsideration of the
Court’s Dismissal Order, and relief is not warranted. Accordingly, Hunter’s
Motion (ECF No. 52) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2021.

4