IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 11, 2011
HILTON KARRIEM MINCY,
WARDEN DEPARLOS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2011, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 93), in which he seeks reconsideration of this Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 24, 2011 (Doc. 91) denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, and it appearing that plaintiff fails 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.'")), North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted), and that he 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 the motion (Doc. 93) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.