IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 9, 2010
MICHAEL JOHNSON, PETITIONER
DAVID A. VARANO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 12) for reconsideration of the order of court (Doc. 11) dated February 4, 2010, wherein the court adopted the report (Doc. 9) of the magistrate judge, which recommended that the petition for habeas corpus filed by petitioner Michael Johnson ("Johnson") be denied, and it appearing that Johnson claims he was not served with the magistrate judge's report, (see Doc. 12 ¶ 6), and that this prevented him from filing timely objections thereto, and it further appearing that Johnson's motion fails to identify any substantive-law rationale for disturbing the court's prior order, and concluding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the challenged order,*fn1 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. 12) for reconsideration is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge