Filed: Sep. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Commissioners, Mayor David S. Copenhaver, Mayor Pro Tem Corey Johnson, J. Patrick Claiborne, and Gwendolyn B. Taylor in December 2014. (Doc. 1.) Eventually, after Plaintiff failed to respond to a motion to dismiss, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond and informed him that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of his case. (Doc. 37.) Instead of responding to
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Commissioners, Mayor David S. Copenhaver, Mayor Pro Tem Corey Johnson, J. Patrick Claiborne, and Gwendolyn B. Taylor in December 2014. (Doc. 1.) Eventually, after Plaintiff failed to respond to a motion to dismiss, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond and informed him that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of his case. (Doc. 37.) Instead of responding to ..
More
ORDER
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Commissioners, Mayor David S. Copenhaver, Mayor Pro Tem Corey Johnson, J. Patrick Claiborne, and Gwendolyn B. Taylor in December 2014. (Doc. 1.) Eventually, after Plaintiff failed to respond to a motion to dismiss, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond and informed him that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of his case. (Doc. 37.) Instead of responding to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an "objection" to the Court's Order instructing him to respond. (Doc. 39.) Because Plaintiff failed to follow the Court's Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 40.) Plaintiff then filed a motion to reconsider, which the Court denied. (Docs. 42, 46.)
Plaintiff has now filed a "motion for leave for further relief." (Doc. 53.) Upon review of Plaintiff's fifty-one-page motion, the Court is unsure what "further relief" he seeks. Construing the motion liberally in Plaintiff's favor, it appears he wishes the Court to reconsider its Order dismissing this lawsuit.
As the Court stated in its Order denying Plaintiff's first motion to reconsider (doc. 46), "reconsideration of a previous order is `an extraordinary remedy, to be employed sparingly.'" Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int'l, N.V., 320 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration is not an appeal, so it is, therefore, improper on a motion for reconsideration to "ask the Court to rethink what the Court ha[s] already thought through — rightly or wrongly." Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). A movant must "set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Cover v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 294, 294 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff has, once again, failed to present a reason justifying reconsideration. In fact, after the Court denied Plaintiff's first motion for reconsideration, but before Plaintiff filed the current motion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint. (Doc. 48.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion (doc. 53) .
ORDER ENTERED.
