United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, Magistrate Judge.
On February 6, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Presently pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order of February 6, 2015, which denied his request for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 53).
A motion for reconsideration may be brought on three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) evidence not previously available, or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co ., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.1995). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy which is to be granted "very sparingly." Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 215 F.Supp.2d 482, 507 (D.N.J.2002).
Plaintiff has not identified any intervening change in controlling law, evidence that has become available since the February 6, 2015, Memorandum Opinion and Order, or facts that the Court overlooked in denying his Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Instead, Plaintiff has simply reraised the same arguments that the Court already fully considered and rejected when it denied the motion for preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2015, in accordance with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that ...