IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 28, 2009
JESSE O. JOHNSON, JR., PETITIONER
FRANKLIN J. TENNIS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 28th day of May, 2009, upon consideration of pro se petitioner's motion (Doc. 35) for reconsideration of the order of court (Doc. 25) dated March 23, 2009, wherein the court required respondents to file an amended motion to dismiss containing sequentially numbered paragraphs, and the court finding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the challenged order, 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. 35) for reconsideration is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.