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

STEPHEN MARK MCDANIEL, ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-198 (MTT) ) WARDEN ANNETTIA TOBY, ) ) ) Respondent. ) __________________ )

ORDER Plaintiff Stephen Mark McDaniel moves the Court for reconsideration of its Order (Doc. 28) and Judgment (Doc. 29). Doc. 30. 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,

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.”

“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,

(M.D. Ga. 1997). McDaniel argues that the Court’s Order is “contrary to principles of equity and to the fundamental tenants of justice.” Doc. 30 at 1. McDaniel’s one page motion does not cite any legal authority to support this assertion.

Consequently, McDaniel has failed to show that the Court made a clear error of law and McDaniel’s motion (Doc. 30)

is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 20th day of January, 2023. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT