Opinion
Civil Action 5:19-cv-132 (MTT)
09-14-2021
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Before the Court is Plaintiff's “Motion to Reconsider Order” (Doc. 146) to this Court's Order (Doc. 144) adopting United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff's report and recommendation (Doc. 139) denying Plaintiff Jamon Jackson's motion for summary judgment (Doc 119).
Jackson also raises several pending motions in his “Motion to Reconsider Order” which are addressed in Judge Langstaff's most recent report and recommendation entered September 8, 2021. Doc. 147. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Jackson's proper remedy is to serve and file written objections to that report and recommendation if he disagrees with Judge Langstaff's findings.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. Indeed, “[r]econsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It “is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates (1) that there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) that new evidence has been discovered which was not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or (3) that the court made a clear error of law.” Id. “In order to demonstrate clear error, the party moving for reconsideration must do more than simply restate his prior arguments, and any arguments which the party inadvertently failed to raise earlier are deemed waived.” McCoy v. Macon Water Authority, 966 F.Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997). Here, Jackson has raised no change in the law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error in the Court's previous Order. Accordingly, Jackson's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 146) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.