Opinion
4:09-cv-150.
February 22, 2011
ORDER
Before the Court is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner-Plaintiff Ervin E. Fox's ("Fox") motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order denying reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of Fox's case. See Doc. 13.
"A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." See Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). Because Fox has failed to "identify newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact," the Court declines to again revisit the claims Fox reasserts from his complaint, see Doc. 1 at 6-7, "Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation," see Doc. 8 at 2-4, and "Motion for Reconsideration Because of Judicial Inadvertence," see Doc. 11. See Richards v. Dickens, 2011 WL 285212, at *2 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011).
Fox's only new argument is that he failed to abide by the statute of limitations because, as a federal prisoner, he lacks a state law library and is ignorant of Georgia law. See Doc. 13 at 6. This argument is meritless. Fox cited Georgia law many times during this litigation, see Docs. 8, 13, and, regardless, his alleged ignorance of the law is not a defense. See Bowhall v. Johnson Johnson, Inc., 2010 WL 3998963, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 12, 2010) ("Plaintiff's ignorance of law arguments do nothing to dust the cobwebs off a long dead statute of limitations clock.")
Fox's motion is DENIED.
This 22nd day of February 2011.