Daniel S. Greenberg v. Judge Anne C. Martin, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied Daniel S. Greenberg’s motion for reconsideration of an order adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying a preliminary injunction. The court held that Greenberg waived further review by failing to timely object and found no intervening change in controlling law, relevant new evidence, or clear error warranting reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Holdings

1. A party's failure to timely object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation waives the right to further judicial review, including appeal, absent a basis excusing the failure.
2. Because the order denying the preliminary injunction was interlocutory, reconsideration is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), not Rule 59(e). The court may revise the interlocutory order in its discretion when necessary to prevent manifest injustice.
3. Reconsideration was unwarranted because Greenberg identified no intervening change in controlling law, no new evidence bearing on the original preliminary-injunction motion, and no clear error or manifest injustice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Greenberg waived further judicial review by failing to timely object to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
2. Whether the interlocutory order denying preliminary injunctive relief could be reconsidered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) despite Greenberg's citation to Rule 59(e).
3. Whether Greenberg established an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence bearing on the original motion, clear error, or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration.

Disposition

other