DAKER v. BRYSON et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 46 Motion to Vacate; 53 Motion to Vacate; 56 Motion to Stay; 58 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/16/2018. (thb)

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

WASEEM DAKER,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

*

V.

CV

617-79

*

MARTY ALLEN, et al.,

individually and in their
official capacities.
Defendants.
ORDER

Before

Court's

the

Order

Court

is

Plaintiff's

adopting

the

motions

Magistrate

to

Judge's

vacate

the

Report

and

Recommendation and to stay these proceedings pending his appeal
in

Daker v.

Bryson,

et

al..

No.

17-14066

(11th Cir.

Sep.

6,

2017) , and Daker v. Comm'r Ga. Dept. of Corr., et al.. No. 1413257

(11th

Cir.

Apr.

4,

2014) .

(Docs.

46,

53,

56,

58. )

Because Plaintiff does not satisfy the criteria for relief under
Federal Rule Civil

Procedure

59(e)

and has not

shown that this

case should be stayed, his motions are DENIED.

Relief under Rule 59(e)

party

shows;

evidence

is

(1)

there

available;

is only appropriate when the moving

has
or

(3)

been

a

change

in

reconsideration

is

law;

966 F. Supp. 1209, 1223

new

necessary

correct a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice.
V. Macon Water Auth.,

(2)

to

McCoy

(M.D. Ga. 1997) .

Plaintiff argues that the Court should not have dismissed

his

complaint

deadlines.

arguments

for

his

failure

to

comply

with

the

Court's

Nevertheless, Plaintiff essentially makes the same

found

in

his

Report and Recommendation.

objection

to

the

Magistrate

Judge's

For example, Plaintiff still insists

that his physical injuries prevented him from complying with the
Court's

deadlines.

The

Court

already

considered

Plaintiff's

excuses and decided that dismissal was still appropriate.

42,

at

6-7.)

Plaintiff's

motion

is

merely

an

(Doc.

attempt

to

relitigate matters already decided by the Court, which does not
entitle him to relief under Rule 59(e).

Jones v. Southern Pan

Servs., 450 F. App'x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2012).^
Therefore, upon due consideration. Plaintiff s motions to
vacate the Court's Order and stay these proceedings (docs. 46,
53, 56, 58) are DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this /^dav of July,
2018.

FUDGE

?ATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

^ Because Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits,

his motion to stay (doc. 56) is DENIED.
1450, 1453 (11th Cir. 1986).

See Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 781 F.2d