IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 8, 2011
HILTON KARRIEM MINCY,
SUPERINTENDENT EDWARD KLEM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2011, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 76) of this Court's Memorandum and Order (Doc. 74) denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, and upon further consideration of plaintiff's motions to amend /correct (Docs. 78, 87) the motion for reconsideration, and it appearing that plaintiff fails to demonstrate one of the three major grounds for reconsideration,
"(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available previously]*fn1 ; [or], (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice*fn2 ," North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted), but, primarily seeks to reargue matters already argued and disposed of because he disagrees with the Court's determination, 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.'"), and the court recognizing that "[b]ecause federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly," Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D.Pa. 1995). it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motions to amend/correct the motion for reconsideration (Docs. 78, 87) are GRANTED to the extent that the arguments raised therein have been considered by the Court.
2. The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 76), as amended/corrected by the motions to amend/correct (Docs. 78, 87) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time fo file a reply brief is GRANTED. Plaintiff's reply brief (Doc. 85) is DEEMED acceptable for filing and has been considered by the Court in addressing plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge