Greenberg v. Martin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DANIEL S. GREENBERG,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE ANNE C. MARTIN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:24-cv-01430
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniel S. Greenberg’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. No.
26). Greenberg seeks to challenge the Order (Doc. No. 25) adopting Magistrate Judge Jeffery S.
Frensley’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 23) and denying Greenberg’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 16). Greenberg failed to timely object to the R&R and offers
no explanation why. 	As a matter of law, such failure is a waiver of the right to further judicial
review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985) (failure to timely file objections to the R&R
waives the right to appeal). 	Greenberg has filed “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation” to his motion (Doc. No. 26-1), dated August 26, 2025—more than a month
after the July 21, 2025, R&R and well past the fourteen-day deadline.
That said, given Greenberg’s pro se status, the Court will consider his other arguments.1
A motion for reconsideration is not an invitation to argue what should have been raised in objection
1 This is Greenberg’s third motion for reconsideration. The Court has afforded Greenberg wide
latitude given his pro se status. 	But future motions for reconsideration that rehash previously
rejected arguments, or that raise arguments that could have been timely presented in the first
instance, will not be favorably received.
Case 3:24-cv-01430 Document 38 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

2
to the R&R. The motion will be denied because the motion impermissibly attempts to raise belated
objections while offering no controlling law the Court overlooked and no new evidence that would
alter the Court’s prior conclusion.
As an initial matter, Greenberg brings this motion under Rule 59(e), which applies to final
judgments. 	But the Court’s Order denying the preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order
governed by Rule 54(b). 	That rule gives district courts broad discretion to revise interlocutory
orders to prevent manifest injustice. See Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89
F. App’x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). “Traditionally, courts will find justification for reconsidering
interlocutory orders when there is (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence
available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id.
Considering those factors, the Court finds no justification for reconsidering its prior Order.
First, the motion cites no intervening change in law: instead, it invokes well-established
constitutional principles (e.g., Due Process) that the R&R did not overlook, but squarely rejected.
Second, the purported 	“newly discovered 	evidence” consists of allegations of additional
constitutional violations and harms that occurred after or were not raised in the original motion.
Granting reconsideration based on these subsequent developments would allow Greenberg to
backdoor a renewed motion for preliminary injunction. The Court declines to allow that.
Because Greenberg identifies no intervening change in controlling law, no new evidence
(that bears on the original motion), and no clear error warranting correction, the Motion to
Reconsider (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-01430 Document 38 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>