United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
T. TREADWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff has filed a two-page document with the Court. Doc.
16. Excluding headings, the document reads as follows in its
I have tried to send out several letters with my responds
[sic] but Houston County Detention Facility has h[i]ndered me
from proceeding by not sending all of my mail out because I
am a[n] indigent inmate also by not giving me the materials
that I need when I qualified as a[n] indigent inmate
th[erefore] I have been trying diligently to represent myself
to the best of my ability I have [no] counsel representing me
and I object to the dismissal of any of the defendants in
this case the jail has refused to forward any evidence
because of my confinement at the Houston County Detention
Center also th[ere] is a limitation to the information and
also objection to Attorney O'Quinn and Cronin bring up my
criminal charges in this civil case and also his statement is
false my mother never talked with him nor gave him any
information about my mental health issues and I would like to
proceed with a speedy jury trial and not wait for any
I would like for each defendant to be suspended without pay
[until] the trial is finished also I would like to receive
20, 000 in cash from each defendant and I would like to be
removed from this jail so I won't be harassed or punished
for the filing of this lawsuit nor discriminated against or
retaliated against I feel that I'm in danger at Houston
County Detention Center the jailers are out to get me[.]
Id. The Court must liberally construe the filings of
the Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed
pro se is to be liberally construed.” (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Mays v.
United States, 817 F.3d 728, 731 n.2 (11th Cir. 2016)
(“Given Mays's motion to vacate and supplemental
notice were filed pro se, we construe them liberally.”
(citation omitted)). Accordingly, the Court construes the
document as a motion for reconsideration of its order
adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that
several Defendants be dismissed from the case without
prejudice (Doc. 14) and a motion for injunctive relief.
See Doc. 16 (stating “I object to the
dismissal of any defendants in this case” and
requesting that the Defendants be suspended without pay, the
Defendants be ordered to pay the Plaintiff $20, 000, and the
Plaintiff be released from jail).
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). Although the Plaintiff states an objection
“to the dismissal of any defendants in this case,
” he has not set forth any argument that such dismissal
was wrong because of an intervening change in law, newly
discovered evidence not previously available, or clear error.
Doc. 16 at 1. Also, the Plaintiff had the opportunity to
object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation but
failed to do so; he waited to contest the dismissal of some
of the Defendants until two and a half months after the
Recommendation and nearly a month after the order adopting
the Recommendation. Compare Doc. 7 (Recommendation,
dated August 31, 2017), with Doc. 14 (order adopting
Recommendation, dated October 16), with Doc. 16
(Plaintiff's motion, dated November 13). The motion for
reconsideration must be denied.
the motion for injunctive relief, a preliminary injunction is
a drastic remedy and is only appropriate if a party
demonstrates that (1) there is a substantial likelihood he
will succeed on the merits of his claim for injunctive
relief, (2) relief is necessary to prevent irreparable
injury, (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that
would be caused to the non-moving party, and (4) granting
relief would not be averse to the public interest. Parker
v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032,
1034-35 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The Plaintiff
has failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits, the necessity of his requested relief to prevent
irreparable injury, that his threatened injury outweighs harm
caused to the non-moving party, or that granting relief would
not be averse to the public. The motion for injunctive relief
therefore also must be denied.
to the extent the Plaintiff contests evidence that he
anticipates opposing counsel will attempt to use at trial, he
will have an opportunity to move to exclude such evidence
closer to trial. At this time, resolution of such a dispute
the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and motion for
injunctive relief (Doc. 16) is DENIED.