IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
September 22, 2009
MARINA KARAKOZOVA, PH.D., PLAINTIFF(S),
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum Order
Currently pending before this Court is plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum Order Dated September 8, 2009 (doc. no. 97)*fn1 . By Order of September 18, 2009 (doc. no. 95), this Court denied plaintiff's last motion essentially seeking reconsideration of the Order denying her motion to extend time for pursuing administrative remedies (doc. no. 90). As rehearsed therein, the purpose of a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinterous, 176, F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). At the time the Court issued its prior rulings on what it construed as a motion for reconsideration, plaintiff had been given until September 14, 2009 to provide additional documents and affidavits in support of her motion for reconsideration, and as of September 18, 2009, the date on which the Order denying her motion for reconsideration was filed, plaintiff had failed to avail herself of the opportunity to do so, and she did not file a motion to extend time within which to respond. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration again, and now attaches documents allegedly in support of her position. Nonetheless, the Court will again deny plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because plaintiff has failed to show that the original Memorandum Order dated September 8, 2009, contained errors of law or fact, or that there is newly discovered evidence which would warrant a reexamination of the Memorandum Order of September 8, 2009. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (doc. no. 97) is therefore DENIED.*fn2
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2009.