ESEAN EDWARDS v. WAYNE STEWART TRUCKING, STARNET INSURANCE COMPANY, and CASEY B. FORMAN

M.D. Georgia

ESEAN EDWARDS v. WAYNE STEWART TRUCKING, STARNET INSURANCE COMPANY, and CASEY B. FORMAN

DecidedFebruary 6, 2026

Docket1:23-cv-00221

StatusUnknown

This text of ESEAN EDWARDS v. WAYNE STEWART TRUCKING, STARNET INSURANCE COMPANY, and CASEY B. FORMAN (ESEAN EDWARDS v. WAYNE STEWART TRUCKING, STARNET INSURANCE COMPANY, and CASEY B. FORMAN) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ESEAN EDWARDS v. WAYNE STEWART TRUCKING, STARNET INSURANCE COMPANY, and CASEY B. FORMAN, (M.D. Ga. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

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

ESEAN EDWARDS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 1:23-CV-221 (LAG) : WAYNE STEWART TRUCKING, : STARNET INSURANCE COMPANY, : and CASEY B. FORMAN, : : Defendants. : : ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Allegation of Discrimination and Personal Injury Report (Motion). (Doc. 58). For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On March 5, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 7, 14, 16), finding that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 19) on futility grounds. (See generally Doc. 43). On March 6, 2025, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. (Doc. 44). On April 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal; and, on September 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. (Docs. 45, 56–57). On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed the subject Motion. (Doc. 58). Defendant StarNet Insurance Company (StarNet) responded on November 17, 2025. Plaintiff did not reply. (See Docket). Thus, the Motion is now ripe for review. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.2. DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s Motion is an improper attempt to relitigate his case. Even if the Court construes the Motion as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be denied. “[M]otions for reconsideration cannot be used ‘to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)). Under Rule 60(b), the district court may relieve a party of a final judgment or order for: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that could not previously have been discovered with reasonable diligence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) a void judgment; (5) a judgment that has been satisfied, released or discharged, that is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or that it would no longer be equitable to apply prospectively; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Jones v. Thomas, 605 F. App’x 813, 815 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). “Rule 60(b)(6) motions must demonstrate ‘that the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief. Even then, whether to grant the requested relief is a matter for the district court’s sound discretion.” Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiff’s Motion reasserts his claims against Defendant StarNet. (See generally Doc. 58). These claims were dismissed by the Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 43 at 3–6). Plaintiff’s Motion does not assert any of the conditions or extraordinary circumstances necessary for Rule 60 reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 58) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 6th day of February, 2026.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

ESEAN EDWARDS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 1:23-CV-221 (LAG) : WAYNE STEWART TRUCKING, : STARNET INSURANCE COMPANY, : and CASEY B. FORMAN, : : Defendants. : : ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Allegation of Discrimination and Personal Injury Report (Motion). (Doc. 58). For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On March 5, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 7, 14, 16), finding that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 19) on futility grounds. (See generally Doc. 43). On March 6, 2025, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. (Doc. 44). On April 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal; and, on September 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. (Docs. 45, 56–57). On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed the subject Motion. (Doc. 58). Defendant StarNet Insurance Company (StarNet) responded on November 17, 2025. Plaintiff did not reply. (See Docket). Thus, the Motion is now ripe for review. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.2. DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s Motion is an improper attempt to relitigate his case. Even if the Court construes the Motion as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be denied. “[M]otions for reconsideration cannot be used ‘to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)). Under Rule 60(b), the district court may relieve a party of a final judgment or order for: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that could not previously have been discovered with reasonable diligence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) a void judgment; (5) a judgment that has been satisfied, released or discharged, that is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or that it would no longer be equitable to apply prospectively; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Jones v. Thomas, 605 F. App’x 813, 815 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). “Rule 60(b)(6) motions must demonstrate ‘that the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief. Even then, whether to grant the requested relief is a matter for the district court’s sound discretion.” Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiff’s Motion reasserts his claims against Defendant StarNet. (See generally Doc. 58). These claims were dismissed by the Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 43 at 3–6). Plaintiff’s Motion does not assert any of the conditions or extraordinary circumstances necessary for Rule 60 reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 58) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 6th day of February, 2026.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

ESEAN EDWARDS v. WAYNE STEWART TRUCKING, STARNET INSURANCE COMPANY, and CASEY B. FORMAN, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esean-edwards-v-wayne-stewart-trucking-starnet-insurance-company-and-gamd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack