United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division
December 10, 2014
JAMES THOMAS PEEBLES, Plaintiff,
Warden HOLT, et al., Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff James Thomas Peebles’ Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 27] of the Magistrate Judge’s Order [Doc. 25] denying his request for appointment of counsel [Doc. 22]. Having reviewed Motion, the Order, and the applicable law, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
Local Rule 7.6 cautions that “[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.” “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.’”Importantly, “[a] motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue the issue the Court has once determined.”
Here, Plaintiff has failed to show that reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order is appropriate on any of the three grounds listed above. There is nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion showing that the law has changed or that new evidence has been discovered. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge’s Order is not clearly erroneous or unjust. In support of his Motion, Plaintiff simply rehashes the same arguments previously considered by the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, no grounds exist for reconsideration.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 27] is DENIED.