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

DELLWAYNE PRICE, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-299 (MTT) ) Sergeant DUGGER, ) ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )

ORDER Plaintiff Dellwayne Price moves the Court for reconsideration of its Order (Doc. 19) and Judgment (Doc. 22) entered for defendant Sergeant Dugger. Doc. 22. 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). It is unclear what Price is asking the Court to reconsider. Price recites general exhaustion principles and then ends his motion with a request that the Court grant him leave to “re-file his exhaust remedies.” Doc. 22 at 1-7. It appears that Price would now like to provide evidence that he exhausted his administrative remedies—after the

defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust has been briefed and ruled on. See Docs. 10; 18; 19; 20. Price does not explain what documents he would like to file and how this “new evidence … was not previously available” to him. Bingham,

at *1. As a result, Price has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of the Court’s Order (Doc. 19) and Judgment (Doc. 22) is appropriate. Accordingly, Price’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 22) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 27th day of June, 2023. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT