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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?