Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Garrett Williams v. Jeffrey A. Beard and Catherine Mcvey
January 6, 2011
GARRETT WILLIAMS,
PLAINTIFF
v.
JEFFREY A. BEARD AND CATHERINE MCVEY, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
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 ...