Filed: Jun. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD , Chief Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order dated May 10, 2016. Dkt. No. 36. In that Order, the Court denied, in relevant part, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. No. 33. Defendants filed a Response opposing Plaintiff's Motion. Dkt. No. 37. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is comm
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD , Chief Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order dated May 10, 2016. Dkt. No. 36. In that Order, the Court denied, in relevant part, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. No. 33. Defendants filed a Response opposing Plaintiff's Motion. Dkt. No. 37. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is commi..
More
ORDER
LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order dated May 10, 2016. Dkt. No. 36. In that Order, the Court denied, in relevant part, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. No. 33. Defendants filed a Response opposing Plaintiff's Motion. Dkt. No. 37. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Fla. Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't of Health and Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1216 (11th Cir. 2000). Motions for reconsideration are to be filed only when "absolutely necessary" where there is: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact. Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1258-59 (N.D. Ga. 2003). "An error is not `clear and obvious' if the legal issues are `at least arguable.'" United States v. Battle, 272 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (quoting Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assoc., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 1985)). Motions for reconsideration are not appropriate to present the Court with arguments already heard and dismissed, to repackage familiar arguments, or to show the Court how it "could have done it better" the first time. Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs., 916 F.Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff'd 97 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996)
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration offers nothing that compels the Court to reconsider its previous ruling. In particular, Plaintiff largely repeats the arguments he raised in his original request. The Court considered and rejected these arguments when issuing its May 10, 2016 Order. Dkt. No. 33, pp. 7-9. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court's May 10, 2016, Order remains the Order of the Court.
SO ORDERED.
