Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. Hogsten

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


March 1, 2006

LEROY A. THOMAS, PLAINTIFF
v.
WARDEN HOGSTEN, DEFENDANT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2006, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 14) of the order of court dated February 17, 2006 (Doc. 12), striking the specific request for $95,000 in damages, and it appearing that the prior order of court struck only the amount requested, not defendant's request for damages, see L.R. 8.1 ("The demand for judgment . . . shall not claim any specific sum where unliquidated damages are involved."), and that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the order of court, see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985) ("The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 14) is DENIED.

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge

20060301

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.