Williams v. United States Of America
ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration re 15 Clerk's Judgment, 14 Order on Report and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/13/2018. (thb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MARK DAMON WILLIAMS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Before the Court is Movant's motion for reconsideration of
For the following reasons, Movant's
motion is DENIED.
Movant Mark Damon Williams was sentenced to 188 months in
prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (^^ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. §
Movant filed this action to vacate his sentence on June
27, 2016, eleven years after his conviction.
Judge recommended dismissing this case because Movant's action
was filed more than one year after his conviction had become
final and therefore was untimely pursuant to 2255(f)(1).
That recommendation was adopted on March 9, 2018.
Movant now asks the Court to reconsider its Order pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Relief under Rule 59(e) is only appropriate when the moving
correct a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice.
V. Macon Water Auth.^ 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1223 (M.D. Ga. 1997).
Here, Movant provides no explanation for why his case should not
be barred as untimely.
Instead, Movant only asks the Court to
let his case proceed ''in the interest of justice."
(Doc. 16, at
Given that movant does not allege any new issues the Court has
not already considered, he has not shown that he is entitled to
relief under Rule 59(e).
See Jones v. Southern Pan Servs., 450
F. App'x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2012) (finding that Rule 59(e) is
not a vehicle for a party relitigate an issue the court has
Upon due consideration, Movant's motion for the Court to
reconsider its Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (doc. 16) is DENIED.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this
day of July,
J.(RAIf^K HALL/^CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED/STATES DISTRICT COURT
:rn district of Georgia
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?