IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 5, 2012
HILTON KARRIEM MINCY, PLAINTIFF,
SECURITY LIEUTENANT WILLIAM P. MCCONNELL, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sean J. McLAUGHLIN United States District Judge
Presently pending before the Court in the above-captioned case is a motion by the Plaintiff, Hilton Karriem Mincy, for reconsideration of the Memorandum Order entered on April 25, 2012 . To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must establish: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence ...; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Brodzki v. Fox Broadcasting, 464 Fed. Appx. 43, 44 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou--Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999)). Because my review of Plaintiff's motion reveals no basis under the foregoing standard justifying reconsideration of my April 25 Memorandum Order, the Plaintiff's motion  shall be, and hereby is, DENIED.
Sean J. McLaughlin
cm: All parties of record.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.