Moseley v. Lynch

Filing 35

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 34 Objection/Motion for Reconsideration, and the 31 Order dated 5/1/17, remains the Order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 5/25/2017. (ca)

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

CARY G. MOSELEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:16-cv-153

v.
JEFF SESSIONS, in his Official Capacity as
Attorney General of the United States,
Defendant.

ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objection/Motion for Reconsideration, (doc. 34),
of the Court’s May 1, 2017, Order, (doc. 31). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.
A motion for reconsideration, or a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion, is “an
extraordinary remedy, to be employed sparingly.” Smith ex rel. Smith v. Augusta-Richmond
Cty., No. CV 110-126, 2012 WL 1355575, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2012) (internal citation
omitted). “A movant must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the
court to reverse its prior decision.” Id. (internal citation omitted). “The only grounds for
granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.”
Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting In re
Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal punctuation omitted)). “A Rule 59(e)
motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of
Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (alterations omitted)).

1

The Court discerns no reason to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Here,
Plaintiff does not present any newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact. The
Court already discussed at length the law supporting its holding that Plaintiff cannot, at this time,
request even partial discovery of Ms. Tracey Jermon. (Doc. 31, pp. 5–6). The Court sees no
error in that analysis, much less clear error warranting reconsideration.
For all the above-stated reasons, as well as those included in the Court’s May 1, 2017,
Order, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and the Order dated May 1,
2017, (doc. 31), remains the Order of the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 25th day of May, 2017.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA