BRADFORD v. SALES

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

AVERY BRADFORD Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:25-cv-00023-TES-AGH Warden TIMOTHY SALES, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Avery Bradford’s Objections [Doc. 9] to the Court’s Order [Doc. 6] adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 4]. The Court construes Plaintiff’s Objections as a Motion for Reconsideration.1 At the outset, “‘motions for reconsideration are disfavored’” and “‘relief under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.’” Mercer v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-324 (CAR), 2012 WL 1414321, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 20, 2012) (quoting Krstic v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1282 (S.D. Fla. 2010)); see also Daker v. Dozier, No. 5:17-cv-25 (CAR), 2017 WL 4797522, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 24, 2017); [Doc. 180 at pp. 2–3]. Furthermore, Rule 59(e) “cannot serve as a vehicle to relitigate old matters or present the case under a new legal theory . . . [or] give the moving party another ‘bite at the apple’ by permitting the arguing of issues and

1 Section 636 of Title 28 does not apply to orders issued by federal district judges. procedures that could and should have been raised prior to judgment.” Daker, 2017 WL 4797522, at *1 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original).

The Court recognizes only three circumstances that warrant reconsideration of a prior order under Rule 59(e): “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest

injustice.” Daker v. Humphrey, Civil Action No. 5:12-CV-461 (CAR), 2013 WL 1296501, at *2 n.1 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2013) (quoting Fla. College of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998)).

Plaintiff’s Motion does not meet the high standard reserved for reconsideration. Indeed, the Motion largely rehashes the same arguments Plaintiff made in his Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. Compare [Doc. 5], with [Doc. 9]. And, the Court considered those arguments when adopting the Recommendation. See

generally [Doc. 6]. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 9] and Motion to Enter Facts [Doc. 8]. SO ORDERED, this 6th day of May, 2025. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT