Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-62 (MTT)
11-18-2013
DARLENE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 32). 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. "Reconsideration 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." Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "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 Auth., 966 F.Supp. 1209, 1223 (M.D. Ga. 1997) (emphasis added).
Here, the Plaintiff has not met her burden. She has alleged no intervening change in the law, has presented no new evidence not previously available to the parties, and the Court is not persuaded its previous ruling was clearly erroneous. The Plaintiff asks for this Court to reconsider its Order granting the Defendants summary judgment because she did not have enough time to file her motion for summary judgment, respond to the Defendants' motion, or find an attorney after her counsel withdrew. Contrary to the Plaintiff's assertions, the Court has extended discovery and the date to file dispositive motions on multiple occasions to allow her time to find counsel. (Docs. 19, 21, 24). Thus, the Plaintiff has had ample time to find counsel and respond to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
___________________
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT