IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
December 3, 2007
JAMES HATCHER, PLAINTIFF
CONIFER REALTY LLC, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 3rd day of December, 2007, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 68) of the memorandum and order of court dated October 30, 2007 (Doc. 64), in which the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, and it appearing that the instant motion, in part, merely repeats arguments from plaintiff's initial motions, 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 challenged memorandum and order, 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. 68) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.