IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 2, 2009
RORY M. WALSH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NATURAL GUARDIAN OF C.R.W., PLAINTIFF
DR. ROBERT KRANTZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 2nd day of March, 2009, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion (Doc. 133) for reconsideration of the order of court (Doc. 127) dated February 9, 2009, which denied plaintiff's appeal (Doc. 114) from the magistrate judge's order (Doc. 113) of December 10, 2008, and the court finding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the challenged order,*fn1 see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotniki, 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 (Doc. 133) for reconsideration is DENIED.