United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
September 9, 2005.
LaFOND JAMES HOUCK, Plaintiff,
WILLIAM STICKMAN, ET AL., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: ARTHUR SCHWAB, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are: petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
of Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and Local Rule 7.1(g)
(Document No. 29), which requests this Court to reconsider its
Order of August 16, 2005, adopting the Report and Recommendation
(R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan, denying his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and denying a certificate
of appealability; and petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time
to File Notice of Appeal (Document No. 30), which requests this
Court to enlarge his time for appeal from that Order or at least,
declare his motion for reconsideration timely so as to invoke the
tolling provisions of the federal rules of appellate procedure,
and to notify him "of the time in which a notice of appeal should
As to the motion to enlarge the time for appeal, this is a
matter of the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, and this Court has no authority to enlarge
or modify that Court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Motion for
Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (Document No. 30) is
However, the Court notes that petitioner's motion for
reconsideration appears to have been timely filed pursuant to
Local Rule 9.3 and Fed.R.App. 4(A)(4)(a)(iv), and thus, he would have thirty days from the date of this Order (which will deny his
motion for reconsideration) within which to perfect his appeal to
the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., United States v. Fiorelli, 337
Fed.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003) (untimely motion for
reconsideration does not toll time to appeal denial of habeas
As for the motion for reconsideration, it merely repackages the
same legal arguments and precedents he raised in his objections,
amended objections, and supplement to amended objections to the
R&R, and offers no convincing reasons why this Court should alter
its judgment made after due consideration of his objections and
the Magistrate Judge's R&R.
Accordingly, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of
Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and Local Rule 7.1(g)
(Document No. 29) is HEREBY DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.