Garrett Williams v. Jeffrey A. Beard and Catherine Mcvey

AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2011, upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 31), filed by plaintiff Garrett Williams ("Williams"), wherein Williams seeks reconsideration of the order of court (Doc. 30) dated December 14, 2010 (hereinafter "the December 14 order") adopting the report and recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Blewitt,*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 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); see also Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002), and the court concluding that the pending motion for reconsideration merely seeks to resolve a point that has already been litigated and resolved, and the court further concluding that Williams has not demonstrated that the December 14 order contains a manifest error of law or fact,*fn2 it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 31) is DENIED.

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States ...