IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 9, 2006
RORY M. WALSH, PLAINTIFF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 2006, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 61) of the order of court dated May 17, 2006 (Doc. 58), in which the court: (1) granted defendants' motion for an enlargement of time to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests, (2) stayed discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss,*fn1 (3) granted defendants' motion to withdraw their de facto admissions, see FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a) ("The [requested admission] is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request . . . the [opposing party] serves . . . a written answer or objection . . . ."); see also id. 36(b) ("Any matter admitted . . . is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits the withdrawal or amendment of the admission." (emphasis added)), and (4) denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45), as it was based entirely on the withdrawn de facto admissions, and the court finding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the order,*fn2 see Harsco Corp.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 for reconsideration (Doc. 61) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge