IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 20, 2007
CHARLES WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2007, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 175) of the order of court dated February 22, 2007 (Doc. 166), in which the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for production of witnesses, 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 or to present newly discovered evidence . . . ."), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 175) is DENIED.