IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 21, 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 21st day of August, 2006, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 104) of the order of court dated August 15, 2006 (Doc. 103), in which the court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal (Doc. 100), and the court finding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the challenged order,*fn1 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 . . . ."), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 104) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge