EDWARDS v. WAYNE STEWART TRUCKING COMPANY et al

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
Case 1:23-cv-00221-LAG Document 61 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
Case 1:23-cv-00221-LAG Document 61 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 2