Price v. Dugger

Full title: DELLWAYNE PRICE, Plaintiff, v. Sergeant DUGGER, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia

Date published: Jun 27, 2023

Civil Action 5:22-CV-299 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. Jun. 27, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 5:22-CV-299 (MTT)

06-27-2023

DELLWAYNE PRICE, Plaintiff, v. Sergeant DUGGER, Defendant.

MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE

ORDER

MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE

Plaintiff Dellwayne Price moves the Court for reconsideration of its Order (Doc. 19) and Judgment (Doc. 22) entered for defendant Sergeant Dugger. Doc. 22.

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, “reconsideration 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).

It is unclear what Price is asking the Court to reconsider. Price recites general exhaustion principles and then ends his motion with a request that the Court grant him leave to “re-file his exhaust remedies.” Doc. 22 at 1-7. It appears that Price would now like to provide evidence that he exhausted his administrative remedies-after the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust has been briefed and ruled on. See Docs. 10; 18; 19; 20. Price does not explain what documents he would like to file and how this “new evidence ... was not previously available” to him. Bingham, 2010 WL 339806 at *1. As a result, Price has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of the Court's Order (Doc. 19) and Judgment (Doc. 22) is appropriate. Accordingly, Price's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 22) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.