CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 28th day of January, 2014, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 58) for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) filed by pro se plaintiff Carlos Zuniga Hernandez ("plaintiff"), wherein the plaintiff requests the court to vacate its October 2, 2013 order (Doc. 51) adopting the report and recommendation (Doc. 40) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, granting the defendant's motion (Doc. 23) for summary judgment, and entering judgment in favor of the defendant as to the pro se plaintiff's sole civil rights claim, and the court noting that Rule 60(b) allows district courts to "relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment" in limited circumstances, see FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) (permitting relief, inter alia, when decision is based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, " or when new evidence not previously available compels a different result), but that the pro se plaintiff has made no effort to cure the record deficiencies previously identified by the magistrate judge and the undersigned, and instead attempts to relitigate those issues now twice addressed the court,  specifically the court's holding that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680, and the court thus concluding that reconsideration of its October 2, 2013 order (Doc. 50) is neither necessary nor appropriate, see, e.g., Dodge v. Susquehanna Univ. , 796 F.Supp. 829, 830 (M.D. Pa. June 2, 1992) (motion for reconsideration is not supported by a "clear error of law" when movant merely disagrees with the court's resolution of a legal issue), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The pro se plaintiff's motion (Doc. 58) for reconsideration is ...