PEREZ v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Opinion

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

RAMON PEREZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-364 (MTT) ) Lieutenant FOSTER, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )

ORDER The Court construes plaintiff Ramon Perez’s recently filed “objection” as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 12, 2023 Order (Doc. 28). Doc. 29. Pursuant 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. Indeed, “reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806 at *1 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It “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.” Id. “In order to demonstrate clear error, the party moving for reconsideration must do more than simply restate his prior arguments, and any arguments which the party inadvertently failed to raise earlier are deemed waived.” McCoy v. Macon Water Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997). Although his motion is difficult to follow, Perez appears to take issue with the Court’s dismissal of some of his claims. Doc. 29. However, it is unclear why Perez believes the dismissal of these claims was erroneous. Rather, he generally states that he objects to their dismissal. Id. at 7 (“I object the recommendation dismissal to the claims of violation of due process of law”); Id. at 8 (“I object to the ground the dismissal of defendants”). Because Perez has failed to demonstrate that the Court’s May 12,

2023 Order was erroneous, his motion for reconsideration (Doc. 29) is DENIED. Perez also objects to the issuance of any recommendation by the United States Magistrate Judge, and requests that the Magistrate Judge only perform certain tasks. Id. at 3-4, 9. However, pursuant to Court order, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Court’s Local Rules, this case was properly referred to the Magistrate Judge. Doc. 3; M.D. Ga. L.R. 72. Therefore, this request is DENIED.1 SO ORDERED, this 13th day of June, 2023. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 Perez also requests discovery, the appointment of counsel, and an injunction. Doc. 29 at 5-6, 11, 14-19, 21. The Court previously addressed and denied these requests. Docs. 16; 18; 28.