Ashley v. Shumake et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 48 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's 44 Order. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/12/2016. (thb)

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

JUSTIN S. ASHLEY,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-53

v.

RONNIE SHUEMAKE; CARLTON
MURPHY; and CALO WATKINS,
Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Objections, (doc. 48), to the Court's Order dated
October 25, 2016, (doc. 44).

The Court construes Plaintiffs Objections as a Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court's October Order.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court
DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration.
BACKGROUND

In its October 25, 2016, Order, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge over Plaintiffs and Defendants' Objections. (Doc. 48.) The Court granted in
part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 29). Plaintiffs First Amendment
retaliation claims, failure to intervene claims against Defendants Shuemake and Watkins, and

supervisor liability claim against Defendant Shuemake survived Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

1 "Courts generally 'must look beyond the labels of [filings] by pro se [parties] to interpret them under
whatever statute would provide relief.'" Edwards v. Hastings. No. 2:14-CV-41, 2016 WL 686386, at *1
(S.D. Ga. Feb. 18, 2016) (quotingLoftonv. Williams. No. CV415-146, 2016 WL 126408, at *2 (S.D. Ga.
Jan. 11, 2016) (first alteration in original)) (citing Means v. Ala.. 209 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000)

(concerning pro se inmates); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) ("Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.");
Wilkerson v. Ga.. 618 F. App'x 610, 611-12 (11th Cir. 2015)).

However, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, excessive
force claims against Defendants Shuemake and Watkins, failure to intervene claims against
Defendant Murphy, and all deliberate indifference claims.
In his instant Motion, Plaintiff objects to the Court's dismissal of his claims for

compensatory and punitive damages. (Doc. 48, p. 1.) In support, he provides, along with a
reiteration of his Objections to the Motion to Dismiss and Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, several anecdotal examples of "incidents where officers at Georgia State

Prison experienced the effects of pepperspray [sic] and each needed 'immediate' medical
attention." (Doc. 48, p. 2.)
DISCUSSION

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
Ctv., 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)).

The Court discerns no reason to grant Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. Here,

Plaintiff does not present any newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.

Plaintiff simply reasserts the arguments from his previous Objections and provides unsupported

anecdotes of prison guards receiving medical treatment for pepper spray and alleged CERT
officer abuses with pepper spray. The Court already discussed at length the law supporting its

holding that Plaintiff cannot recover compensatory and punitive damages. (Doc. 36, pp. 6-9.)
The Court sees no error in that analysis, much less clear error warranting reconsideration.
CONCLUSION

For all of the above-stated reasons, as well as those included in the Court's prior Order
and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion
for Reconsideration, (doc. 48). The Court's Order dated October 25, 2016, (doc. 44), remains
the Order of the Court.

SO ORDERED, this >6? day ofDecember, 2016.

JAL HALL

rATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA