IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 13, 2010
THEODORE C. LEHMIER, PLAINTIFF
DOUGLAS J. AUSTEN, COREY L. BRITCHER, AND TERRENCE KANE, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 14th day of October, 2010, upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 65), filed by defendants Douglas J. Austen, Corey L. Britcher, and Terrence Kane (collectively "defendants"), wherein defendants seek reconsideration of the memorandum and order of court (Doc. 63) dated August 6, 2010 (hereinafter "the August 6 order") on the grounds that the August 6 order should have granted defendants' motion for summary judgment,*fn1 and it further appearing that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or fact, see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), that the court possesses inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory orders "when it is consonant with justice to do so," United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. 301 F. App'x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008), and that a party may not invoke a motion for reconsideration as a means to relitigate matters of disagreement with the court, see Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ. A. 99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001), nor may a party use a motion for reconsideration to present additional arguments which it could have raised but neglected to raise before the court's decision, see United States v. Jasin, 292 F. Supp. 2d 670, 677 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2003), and the court concluding that the evidence favoring plaintiff Theodore C. Lehmier ("Lehmier") is sufficient to enable Lehmier's First Amendment claims to survive summary judgment,*fn2 and the court further concluding that defendants have not demonstrated that the August 6 order contains a manifest error of law or fact,*fn3 nor have they presented newly discovered evidence, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 65) is DENIED.