IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
September 18, 2006
RORY M. WALSH, PLAINTIFF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2006, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 123) of the orders of court dated August 29, August 31, and September 5, 2006 (Docs. 116, 117, 120, 121),*fn1 in which the court denied plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel, stay proceedings pending appeal, deem admitted requests for admissions,*fn2 and compel production of documents, and it appearing that the instant motion, in part, merely repeats arguments from plaintiff's initial motions (compare, e.g., Doc. 124 ¶ 2, with Doc. 107 ¶ 4), see Waye v. First Citizen's Nat'l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa. 1994) ("A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of."), and the court finding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the orders and memorandum, 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. 123) is DENIED.