Taylor v. Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Government, Commissioner(s), et.al. et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 53 Motion for Leave for Further Relief. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/15/2016. (pts)

IN THE UNITED
FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

WARREN ADAM TAYLOR,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

v,

*
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY

*

et al.,

114-231

*

CONSOLIDATED COMMISSIONERS

CV

*

Defendants*

*
*

ORDER

Plaintiff

Richmond

County

Copenhaver,
and

filed

action

Consolidated

against

B.

after

Taylor

Plaintiff

Defendants

Commissioners,

Mayor Pro Tern Corey Johnson,

Gwendolyn

Eventually,

this

in

J.

December

failed

to

Mayor

Augusta-

David

S.

Patrick Claiborne,

2014.

respond

(Doc.

to

a motion

1.)

to

dismiss, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond and informed him
that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of his case.

(Doc.

37.)

Instead

of

responding

to

the

motion

to

dismiss,

Plaintiff filed an "objection" to the Court's Order instructing

him to respond.

(Doc.

39.)

Because Plaintiff failed to follow

the Court's Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's case without

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

(Doc. 40.)

Plaintiff then

filed
42,

a

motion

to

reconsider,

which

the

Court

denied.

46.)
Plaintiff

relief."

(Doc.

motion,

the

has

now

53.)

Court

filed

a

"motion

Upon review of

is

unsure

what

for

leave

Plaintiff's

"further

for

wishes

the

Court

to

reconsider

its

relief"

Order

further

fifty-one-page
he

Construing the motion liberally in Plaintiff's favor,
he

(Docs.

seeks.

it appears

dismissing

this

lawsuit.

As
motion

order

the Court stated in its Order denying Plaintiff's first
to

reconsider

is

v.

2d

motion

Cruise

1347,

for

therefore,
Court to

Ships

"reconsideration

1358

to

Catering

(S.D.

Fla.

reconsideration

&

2004)

is

not

Int'l,

(citation
an

or

Roofing,

Inc.,

appeal,

previous

N.V.,

320

omitted).
so

it

F.

A
is,

wrongly."

Above

99 F.R.D.

facts

or

the

99, 101

law

of

a

already thought through —

Belt,

Inc.

v.

Stores,

Inc.,

(citation omitted)
Plaintiff

148

F.R.D.

Mel

(E.D. Va.

1983).

strongly

convincing

induce the court to reverse its prior decision."

Mart

a

employed sparingly.'"

Serv.

rethink what the Court ha[s]

forth

be

of

improper on a motion for reconsideration to "ask the

rightly

"set

46),

^an extraordinary remedy,

Williams

Supp.

(doc.

294,

294

(M.D.

Bohannan

A movant must
nature

to

Cover v. Wal-

Fla.

1993)

(emphasis added).

has,

once

justifying reconsideration.

again,

failed

In fact,

to

present

a

reason

after the Court denied

Plaintiff's
Plaintiff

first
filed

motion
the

for

current

reconsideration,
motion,

the

but

Eleventh

before
Circuit

affirmed the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint.

(Doc.

48.)

(doc.

Accordingly,

the

Court

DENIES

Plaintiff's

motion

53) .

ORDER ENTERED
September,

at Augusta,

Georgia

this

y£y

day

2016.

UNI DAL

HALL

UNITEiy STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2RN

DISTRICT

OF GEORGIA

of