IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
November 16, 2011
MR. LT. MCCOY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2011, upon consideration of plaintiff's motions for reconsideration (Docs. 54, 55) of this Court's September 22, 2011 Order (Doc. 53) granting defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, 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); 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.'"), but, rather, simply disagrees with the Court's determination that the complaint lacked sufficient factual matter concerning defendants personally involvement in constitutionally impermissible retaliatory conduct*fn1 , it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motions (Docs. 54, 55) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 57) is DENIED.
Christopher C. Conner