IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 12, 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
ORDER AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2006, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 145) of the orders of court dated September 5 and October 6, 2006 (Docs. 120, 143),*fn1 in which the court denied plaintiff's motion to compel the production of documents and motion to hold defendants in contempt, for sanctions, and to require defendants to attend depositions, and the court finding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the challenged orders, 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. 145) is DENIED.