Armbruster v. Roosenbloom et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration re 8 Order on Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 04/11/2016. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

JARROD CLIFFORD ARMBUSTER,
Plaintiffs,

*

v.

DR. WILLIAM ROSENBLOOM,

et

*

l:15-cv-114

al. ,
Defendants.

*

*

ORDER

This

30,

comes

2015 motion.

motion

22,

case

as

2015

(Doc.

requesting

Order

before

the

10.)

Court

The

on

Court

reconsideration

adopting

the

Plaintiff's

of

construes

the

Magistrate

September

Plaintiff's

Court's

Court's

September

Report

and

Recommendation that this case be dismissed for lack of subject-

matter

jurisdiction.

(Docs.

6,

8.)

The

Court

DENIES

Plaintiff's motion for the reasons contained herein.

I.

Pursuant

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION STANDARD

to

Federal

Rule

of Civil

Procedure

59(e),

a party

may seek to alter or amend a judgment in a civil case within
twenty-eight

days

" [R] econsideration

remedy,

after
of

a

the

previous

entry
order

to be employed sparingly.'"

of
is

the
"an

Williams v.

judgment.

extraordinary

Cruise Ships

Catering & Serv. Int'l, N.V., 320 F.

Supp. 2d 1347, 1358

Fla.

In

2004)

(citation

omitted).

fact,

a

(S.D.

motion

for

reconsideration is not an appeal, and thus it is improper on a
motion

for

reconsideration

to

"ask

the

Court

to

rethink

what

[the Court] ha[s] already thought through — rightly or wrongly."
Above
99,

the

101

Co.,

Belt,

(E.D.

No.

2009)

Inc.
Va.

v.

1983),

08-23183,

2009

and Vidinliey v.

WL 5459335,

Mel

at *1

Bohannan

quoted
WL

in

Weitz

1636125,

at

Carey Int'l,

(N.D.

Ga.

Dec.

Roofing,
Co.

*1

Inc.,

15,

Inc.,
v.

(S.D.

No.

2008).

99

F.R.D.

Transp.
Fla.

Ins.

June

l:07-cv-762,

11,

2008

A movant must "set

forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the
court to reverse its prior decision."
Inc. , 148 F.R.D.

Although
relief,
that

294,

Rule

district

merit

294

(M.D.

Fla.

59(e)

does

not

courts

in

reconsideration

this
of

Cover v. Wal-Mart Stores,

1993)

set

(citation omitted).

forth

Circuit
an

the

have

order:

grounds

identified

(1)

an

for

three

intervening

change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence;
and

(3)

the

injustice.
Hamilton,
Salem,

need

See,
385 F.

Saxon

&

to

correct

e.g.,

Supp.

Ctr.

2d 1330,

Nielsen,

clear

P.A.,

for
1337
153

error

or

prevent

Biological

Diversity

(N.D. Ga. 2005);
F.R.D.

689,

manifest

v.

Sussman v.

694

(M.D.

Ga.

1994) .

"Motions

for

reconsideration

should

not

be

used

to

raise

legal arguments which could and should have been made before the

judgment was issued."

Lockard v. Equifax, Inc., 163 F.3d 1259,

1267

(11th Cir. 1998); see also Collins v.

Ass'n Local

1423,

Ga.

2013 Jan.

be

used

to

lacking."
Vill.

30,

2013)

2013 WL

393096,

at

*1

Wellington,

cannot

issues

which

have

already

been

Fla.,

use

408

a

F.3d

Rule

757,

59(e)

763

motion

(11th

to

found

Inc.

Cir.

v.

2005)

relitigate

old

raise argument or present evidence that could have been

raised prior

not

a

to

the

vehicle

entry of

for

judgment.").

rehashing

Further,

arguments

already

Rule

v.

Nu-Cape

Constr.,

Inc.,

169

F.R.D.

680,

59(e)

rejected

the court or for refuting the court's prior decision."
Int'l

(S.D.

("Motions for reconsideration should not

relitigate

("[A party]

"is

2:09-cv-093,

(internal quotations omitted)); Michael Linet,

of

matters,

No.

Int'l Longshoremen's

686

by

Wendy's
(M.D.

Ga.

1996).

"A motion

to

reconsider

is

properly

brought

to

correct

a

clear error in the court's interpretation of either the facts or
the

law.

It

should

injustice,

however

discretion

rests

Medley
Ala.

v.

requires

showing
of

Inc.,

Prudential

Sec,

Fla. 1996)).

the

in

of

court

v.

such

F.R.D.

obvious

F.

a

697,

motion."

698

(M.D.

ordinarily

error'

where

McGuire

1358 (M.D.
919

manifest

substantial

"This

correction."

Emerson,

"An error is not

granting

162

and

prevent

and

omitted).

Supp. 2d 1356,

Inc.

to

measure,

in

Inc.,

'clear
demand

order

extreme

citations

justice'

497 F.

an

Stevens,

(internal

a

'interests

Grp.,

with

used

is

it

Westpoint

1995)

be

v.

Fla.

Supp.

Ryland

2007) (quoting

415,

'clear and obvious'

the

417

(M.D.

if the legal

issues are
F.

'at least arguable.'"

Supp.

2d

Assurance

Co.

1239

1354,
v.

(11th Cir.

1358

Glenn

(N.D.

Estess

Magistrate

Court's

May

Court's

and dismissed

2003)

& Assocs.,

(quoting
Inc.,

763

Am.

Home

F.2d

1237,

DISCUSSION

22,

Report

2015
and

Plaintiff's

jurisdiction.

Ga.

272

1985)).

II.

The

United States v. Battle,

Order

(Doc.

Recommendation

Complaint

for

8)

adopted

(Doc.

lack

of

The Magistrate Court's Report

6)

in

the
full

subject-matter

and Recommendation

explained the scope of federal jurisdiction:

To have jurisdiction over a case,
court

must

have

at

least

one

of

a district
the

three

types
of
subject-matter jurisdiction:
(1)
jurisdiction
pursuant
to
a
specific
statutory
grant;
(2)
federal
question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331;
or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C.
§
1332(a).
The
party
asserting
jurisdiction has the burden of establishing
that

their

cause

lies

within

this

limited

grant of jurisdiction to demonstrate that
diversity exists by a preponderance of the
evidence.
A Plaintiff must plead facts that
support the existence of federal diversity
jurisdiction.
(Doc.

Complaint

6

at

4

did not

(internal

citations

contain a federal

asks

the

the

Court

underqualified

instant
to

motion,

"grant

student

[him]

performed

Plaintiff's

claim and failed to allege

any basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Through

omitted.))

(Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff,
a

an

jury

proceeding pro
trial"

allegedly

se,

because

an

unconsented

to

surgery on him.

form,

(Doc.

10 at

1.)

Plaintiff attached his consent

a description of his injuries,

and an article describing

another individual who underwent the same surgery to his motion.
(Id.

at 5-16.)

A
no

review of

reason

error.

why

the materials
the

Court's

submitted by Plaintiff suggests

previous

Order

constituted

clear

Plaintiff's pro se Complaint alleged state-law tort and

breach-of-contract

evidence

in

the

claims,

record

and

there

demonstrating

between Plaintiff and Defendants.

is

no

allegation

diversity

Accordingly,

of

citizenship

this Court does

not have federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

III.

For

all

of

the

concludes

that

Plaintiff

injustice

under

Rule

§ 1331 or

§ 1332.

CONCLUSION

reasons

59.

or

has

not

contained
shown

Accordingly,

herein,

clear

error

the
or

Plaintiff's

Court

manifest

motion

is

DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusl
>ta,

Georgia, this

//

day of April,

2016.

yi
HONOBABLH) J. RANDAL HALL

uni^ed^sAtes DISTRICT JUDGE
SOnTHCTHT DISTRICT

OF GEORGIA