IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
January 11, 2011
NATHAN FAZENBAKER,ALAN SHIPLEY,
TIM GUISE,AND CHAD SPRANKLE, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2011, upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 135), filed by plaintiff Anthony White ("White"), wherein White seeks reconsideration of the order of court (Doc. 129) dated September 28, 2010 (hereinafter "the September 28 order") granting summary judgment in favor of defendants,*fn1 and upon further consideration of the supplements (Doc. 136, 138) pertaining thereto, and of defendants' brief (Doc. 137) in opposition, and it 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 toreconsider 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), and the court concluding that White has neither presented newly discovered evidence nor demonstrated that the September 28 order contains a manifest error of law or fact,*fn2 and that his motion for reconsideration merely seeks to relitigate a "point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant," Abu-Jamal, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9; see also Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 135) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge