Opinion ID: 3059630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reinstatement of GEO

Text: 2 “We review a district court's grant of a new trial for abuse of discretion. A judge should grant a motion for a new trial when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict.” Lipphardt v. Durango Steakhouse of Brandon, Inc., 267 F.3d 1183, 1186 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 When this case was first before this Court, we affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of GEO because German failed to present evidence that “GEO had a policy or custom of depriving inmates of medical care for financial reasons.” German, 315 Fed. Appx. at 776. Under the law of the case doctrine, the district court and this Court are bound by that earlier ruling unless: “(1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to that issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice.” United States v. Robinson, 690 F.2d 869, 872 (11th Cir. 1982). German has failed to show that any of these exceptions applies here. The district court, therefore, did not err in denying German’s request to reinstate GEO as a party defendant. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm final judgment in favor of the defendants. AFFIRMED. 7