IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
January 7, 2011
DET. SNEATH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
ORDER AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2011, upon consideration of defendants' motion for reconsideration (Doc. 68) of this court's order (Doc. 65) deeming their motions for summary judgment (Docs. 62, 64) withdrawn for failure to file briefs in support of the motion as required by Local Rule 7.5, and it appearing that defendants fail to demonstrate one of three major grounds for reconsideration ((1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available previously]; [or], (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice.'"))*fn1 , North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see Waye v. First Citizen's Nat'l Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa.) ("A motion for reconsideration is not to be used to reargue matters already argued and disposed of."), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1174 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ'g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993) (citations omitted) ("A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and 'recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.'"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 68) is DENIED.
2. The matter will be set for trial at the convenience of the court.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge