Gandy v. Bryson et al

Filing 80

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59 . 66 Motion for Reconsideration is denied. 70 Motion for District Court to Rule on Motion for Intervention is denied as moot. Daker is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 10/31/17. (slt)

3ln tlje Mniteif States; ^tsitrict Contrt^ ^ -';Rt
Jfor tlie ^otttl^eni Bisftrict o((Jleorflia

^apcrosfsi Bifaisiion

j

A q: 51

♦

KASIM GANDY,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:16-cv-44

V.

TOM GRAMIAK; NATHAN BROOKS;
WILLIAM STEEDLY; KIMBERLY LOWE;
and UNIT MANAGER COX,
Defendants.
ORDER

Presently before the Court are the Magistrate Judge's
June 16, 2017, Report and Recommendation, Movant Waseem Dakar's
{"Daker") Motion for Reconsideration, and Dakar's Motion for
District Court to Rule on Motion for Intervention.

59, 66, 70.

Dkt. Nos.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

Dakar's Motion for Reconsideration and DISMISSES AS MOOT Dakar's
Motion for District Court to Rule on Motion for Intervention.

Additionally, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and DENIES Dakar
leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
BACKGROUND

On February 3, 2017, Daker filed a Motion to Intervene in

this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner-plaintiff case.

AO 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Dkt. No. 36.

The Magistrate Judge denied Daker's Motion.

Dkt. No. 39.

Daker

filed a Motion for Reconsideration, dkt. no. 55, which the

Magistrate Judge denied on June 16, 2017, dkt. no. 58.

The

Magistrate Judge also recommended this Court deny Daker in forma
pauperis status on appeal if Daker appealed the Order denying
his Motion for Reconsideration.

Dkt. No. 59.

Daker then filed

a second Motion for Reconsideration, requesting the district
court to reevaluate the Magistrate Judge's June 16, 2017, Order
denying his first Motion for Reconsideration.

Dkt. No. 66.

Daker also separately filed a Motion asking the District Court
to rule upon the originally filed Motion to Intervene.

Dkt.

No. 70.

DISCUSSION

The Court construes Daker's second Motion for

Reconsideration as a Rule 72(a) objection or appeal of the

Magistrate Judge's June 16, 2017, Order.^

Under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 72(a), 'Ma] party may serve and file objections

to [a magistrate judge's] order within 14 days after being
served with a copy. . . . The district judge in the case must

^

^^Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se

litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order
to place it within a different legal category." Retic v. United
States, 215 F. App'x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Castro v.
United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003)). Federal courts ^^may do so
in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, to avoid inappropriately
stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a
better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion's claim
and its underlying legal basis." Id. (quoting Castro, 540 U.S. at
381-82).
A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of
the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

(reciting same ^^clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard).
District courts apply the clearly erroneous standard to

findings of fact by the magistrate judge and the contrary to law
standard to legal conclusions.
deferential."

Both standards are ''exceedingly

Pate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. CV 216-166,

2014 WL 5460629, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 27, 2014) (internal

citations omitted).

"A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when

although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing [body]
on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed."

Concrete Pipe &

Prods, of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S.

Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993)(citing United States v. U.S.

Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).

A finding is contrary to

law "where it either fails to follow or misapplies the
applicable law."

Jackson v. Deen, No. CV412-139, 2013 WL

3991793, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 2, 2013)(citations omitted).

The Court discerns no reason to modify or set aside any
part of the Magistrate Judge's Order.

The Magistrate Judge

applied the appropriate legal standard in denying Daker's Motion
for Reconsideration and addressed Daker's arguments extensively.
Dkt. No. 59, pp. 3-4.

Furthermore, Daker's arguments

challenging the Magistrate Judge's June 16, 2017, Order simply
reiterate the arguments already discussed and rejected by the

Magistrate Judge.

The Court sees no error in that analysis,

much less clear error, and does not find the Magistrate Judge's
ruling to be contrary to law.
CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Daker's Motion for
Reconsideration, dkt. no. 66, and DISMISSES AS MOOT Daker's

Motion for this Court to rule on his previously-addressed Motion
to Intervene, dkt. no. 70.

Furthermore, the Court ADOPTS the

Magistrate Judge's June 16, 2017, Report and Recommendation,
dkt. no. 59, as the opinion of the Court and DENIES Daker leave
to appeal in forma pauperls.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of

Court to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff AND non-party
Waseem Daker.

SO ORDERED, this

day of

HpN/ LISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

A0 72A

(Rev, 8/82)

, 2017.