Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-0868-GET.
February 21, 2006
ORDER
The above-styled matter is presently before the court on defendant's motion for reconsideration of this court's January 17, 2006 order, which overruled the objections of both plaintiff and defendant and adopted and incorporated the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation [docket no. 61].
Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 31, 2003, alleging that defendant, his former employer, discriminated against him on the basis of his race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq., ("Title VII"), and age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et. seq. On November 4, 2004, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The same day, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On duly 26, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a non-final R R recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment be denied, and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part.
On August 9, defendant filed objections to the portions of the R R recommending that its motion for summary judgment be denied. On August 12, plaintiff filed objections to the portions of the R R recommending that its partial motion for summary judgment be denied in part. In an order dated January 17, 2006, this court overruled the objections of both plaintiff and defendant. It adopted and incorporated the R R. Defendants now move for reconsideration of this court's January order, specifically requesting the court to reconsider whether Mr. Marshall was similarly situated to plaintiff.
A motion for reconsideration should be filed only when, after careful consideration, it is deemed "absolutely necessary" by the movant. LR 7.2E, NDGa. Such a motion may not be employed as a vehicle to tender new legal theories or to introduce new evidence that could have been presented in conjunction with the previously filed motion or response. Rather, motions for reconsideration serve the limited purpose of correcting manifest errors of law or fact, or in certain instances, calling newly discovered evidence to the court's attention. Thus, the court is willing to reconsider a prior ruling on an issue in the face of new mandatory authority.
After considering defendant's motion for reconsideration, the court adheres to the ruling set forth in its January 17, 2006 order [docket no. 48]. Therefore, defendant's motion for reconsideration [docket no. 69] is DENIED.
Summary
Defendant's motion for reconsideration [docket no. 69] is hereby DENIED.SO ORDERED.