AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2009, upon consideration of the court's memorandum and order (Doc. 90) dated March 31, 2009, which granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment, and which found, inter alia, that defendants Sergeant Haines ("Haines") and Detective Bixler ("Bixler") were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the claim for unlawful arrest and unlawful imprisonment brought by plaintiff Holly Dull ("Holly"), and upon further consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 92) for reconsideration, requesting that the court revisit this aspect of its ruling,*fn1 and it appearing that plaintiff's motion lacks merit,*fn2 and that plaintiff had the opportunity to address the issue in her opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion but failed to do so, see Doc. 83, and the court concluding that motions for reconsideration are not intended to give litigants "a second bite at the apple," see Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995), and that litigants should not use a motion for reconsideration "to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter previously decided," id. (quoting Brambles USA, Inc., v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990)), and the court further concluding that the challenged order contains no manifest errors of law or fact, 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 plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.