AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2009, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration*fn1 (Doc. 16) of this court's memorandum and order of February 23, 2009 (Doc. 15), granting the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Straub, Clements, and Mumma, and it appearing that plaintiff fails to set forth any of the grounds that would warrant reconsideration, North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted) ("A proper motion to alter or amend judgment must rely on one of three major grounds: '(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available previously]; [or], (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice.'"), and merely reargues the court's conclusion regarding the claim of conspiracy,*fn2 and defendants' personal involvement in the alleged underlying constitutional violations,*fn3 see Waye v. First Citizen's Nat'l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa.) ("A motion for reconsideration is not to be used to reargue matters already argued and disposed of."), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1174 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ'g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993) (citations omitted) ("A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and 'recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.'"), and it further appearing that plaintiff is not entitled to relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) ("Relief from Judgment or Order"), because the Rule 60(b) finality requirement, which allows a party to seek relief only from a "final judgment, order, or proceeding,"*fn4 is not satisfied as claims are still proceeding against a number of defendants, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 16) is DENIED.