Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hampton v. Wetzel

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

June 10, 2014

SHAWN HAMPTON, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of defendants' motion (Doc. 59) for reconsideration of the Memorandum (Doc. 54) and Order (Doc. 55) entered on March 31, 2014, and it appearing that defendants fail to demonstrate reliance on one of three major grounds needed for a proper motion for reconsideration, North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co. , 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating three major grounds include "(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."), but, instead, simply disagree with the Court's decision, see Waye v. First Citizen's Nat'l Bank , 846 F.Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa. 1994) (finding that "[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) (holding "[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.'"), it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motion (Doc. 59) is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.