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.

Malcomb v. McKean

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

September 23, 2014

JOSEPH CLIFFORD MALCOMB, Plaintiff,
v.
CRAIG MCKEAN, Pennsylvania State Police; and JOSHUA THOMAS, Pennsylvania State Police, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: PRO SE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (DOC. NO. 47)

ARTHUR J. SCHWAB, District Judge.

This case is a pro se prisoner civil rights action. In late August, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy issued a Report and Recommendation, in which Judge Eddy recommended that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Plaintiff's sole remaining count, malicious prosecution, be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. No. 44. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 45. On September 12, 2014, after consideration of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, the Report and Recommendation, and Judge Eddy's Report and Recommendation, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and marked this case closed. Doc. No. 46.

Presently before this Court are Plaintiff's "objections" to the Court's Memorandum Order closing the case. Doc. No. 47 (dated September 17, 2014). Plaintiff contends that the Court has "ignored" the facts as pled, "overlooked" his request for an extension of time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment in May, 2014, and generally complains that he has been prejudiced by the Court's rulings. Id . Plaintiff moves this Court to review its prior Orders. Id . A proper motion for reconsideration must rely on one of three grounds: (1) intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence that was not available when the Court entered judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer , 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros , 176 F.3d 669, 678 (3d Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff has not set forth any grounds to disturb this Court's rulings and, therefore, to the extent that his objections may be seen to be a motion for reconsideration, said motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


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.