IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 19, 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 19th day of October, 2009, upon consideration of pro se petitioner's motion (Doc. 59) for reconsideration of the order of court (Doc. 56) dated July 30, 2009, wherein the court denied petitioner's third motion to strike respondents' pleadings for alleged fraud and perjury, 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. 59) for reconsideration is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.