GAITHER v. HOOKS

Filing 37

ORDER denying 34 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 35 Motion to Compel and denying Plaintiff's construed Motions for Reconsideration. The Court's Orders of 8/19/2016, 9/26/2016, and 1/18/2017 shall remain the Orders of the Court, and this case shall remain CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/26/2017. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

RUSSELL GAITHER,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-9

v.

BRAD HOOKS,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs two post-judgment Motions. (Docs. 34, 35.)

After review, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motions. The Court's Orders dated August 19,

2016, September 26, 2016, and January 18, 2017, (docs. 24, 26, 32), shall remain the Orders of
the Court.

Though docketed as seeking the appointment of counsel and the granting of a motion to

compel, Plaintiff ostensibly seeks reconsideration of the Court's previous Orders denying his

Motions for Appointment of Counsel and dismissing his claims.1 In addition, Plaintiff levies
accusations that the undersigned and United States Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker somehow
went above the Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood's authority to enter rulings in this cause of action.

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) (quoting Lofton v. Williams. No. CV415-146, 2016 WL 126408, at *2 (S.D. Ga.
Jan. 11, 2016) (first alteration in original)) (citing Means v. Alabama. 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)).

To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's previous Orders, the Court DENIES

any such request.
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 Motions. He fails to present any newly-

discovered evidence in support of his claims, nor does he allege this Court's previously-entered

Orders represent a manifest error of law or fact. Thus, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs
construed Motions for Reconsideration. In addition, Plaintiffs accusation that the undersigned

and Magistrate Judge Baker usurped authority from then-Chief Judge Wood is patently without
merit. The undersigned and Magistrate Judge Baker entered all rulings in this cause of action, as
this case was assigned to us for review and disposition.

The Court's Orders dated August 19, 2016, September 26, 2016, and January 18, 2017,
shall remain the Orders of the Court, and this case shall remain closed.

SO ORDERED, this £*fe> (lav ofMay, 2017.

J. RANDAJJJJALL, CHIEF JUDGE'
UINITED SJTATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA