Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gandy v. Gramiak

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Waycross Division

October 31, 2017

KASIM GANDY, Plaintiff,
v.
TOM GRAMIAK; NATHAN BROOKS; WILLIAM STEEDLY; KIMBERLY LOWE; and UNIT MANAGER COX, Defendants.

          ORDER

          HON LISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE

         Presently before the Court are the Magistrate Judge's June 16, 2017, Report and Recommendation, Movant Waseem Daker's ("Daker") Motion for Reconsideration, and Daker's Motion for District Court to Rule on Motion for Intervention. Dkt. Nos. 59, 66, 70. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Daker's Motion for Reconsideration and DISMISSES AS MOOT Daker's Motion for District Court to Rule on Motion for Intervention. Additionally, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and DENIES Daker leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

         BACKGROUND

         On February 3, 2017, Daker filed a Motion to Intervene in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner-plaintiff case. Dkt. No. 36. The Magistrate Judge denied Daker's Motion. Dkt. No. 39. Daker filed a Motion for Reconsideration, dkt. no. 55, which the Magistrate Judge denied on June 16, 2017, dkt. no. 58. The Magistrate Judge also recommended this Court deny Daker in forma pauperis status on appeal if Daker appealed the Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. No. 59. Daker then filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, requesting the district court to reevaluate the Magistrate Judge's June 16, 2017, Order denying his first Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. No. 66. Daker also separately filed a Motion asking the District Court to rule upon the originally filed Motion to Intervene. Dkt. No. 70.

         DISCUSSION

         The Court construes Daker's second Motion for Reconsideration as a Rule 72(a) objection or appeal of the Magistrate Judge's June 16, 2017, Order.[1] Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), "[a] party may serve and file objections to [a magistrate judge's] order within 14 days after being served with a copy. . . . The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (reciting same "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard).

         District courts apply the clearly erroneous standard to findings of fact by the magistrate judge and the contrary to law standard to legal conclusions. Both standards are "exceedingly deferential." Pate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. CV 216-166, 2014 WL 5460629, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 27, 2014) (internal citations omitted). "A finding is'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Concrete Pipe & Prods, of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993)(citing United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A finding is contrary to law "where it either fails to follow or misapplies the applicable law." Jackson v. Deen, No. CV412-139, 2013 WL 3991793, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 2, 2013)(citations omitted).

         The Court discerns no reason to modify or set aside any part of the Magistrate Judge's Order. The Magistrate Judge applied the appropriate legal standard in denying Daker's Motion for Reconsideration and addressed Daker's arguments extensively. Dkt. No. 59, pp. 3-4. Furthermore, Daker's arguments challenging the Magistrate Judge's June 16, 2017, Order simply reiterate the arguments already discussed and rejected by the Magistrate Judge. The Court sees no error in that analysis, much less clear error, and does not find the Magistrate Judge's ruling to be contrary to law.

         CONCLUSION

         Accordingly, the Court DENIES Daker's Motion for Reconsideration, dkt. no. 66, and DISMISSES AS MOOT Daker's Motion for this Court to rule on his previously-addressed Motion to Intervene, dkt. no. 70. Furthermore, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's June 16, 2017, Report and Recommendation, dkt. no. 59, as the opinion of the Court and DENIES Daker leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff AND non-party Waseem Daker.

         SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] "Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category." Retic v. United States, 215 Fed.Appx. 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003)). Federal courts "may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a better correspondence between the substance of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.