United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Magistrate Judge, Schwab
H. RAMBO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is Plaintiff Darrell Parks'
(“Park”) motion to alter or amend judgment. (Doc.
44.) The motion will be deemed to be a motion for
reconsideration of this court's memorandum and order of
January 18, 2017. (Docs. 41 & 42.)
August 14, 2016, Parks filed pro se a Bivens action.
The case was referred to a magistrate judge who filed a
report and recommendation on December 5, 2016 recommending
that the action be dismissed after careful analysis of the
factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas.
Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). Objections to the
report and recommendation were due on December 19, 2016. As
of January 18, 2017, no objections were filed. On January 31,
2017, the memorandum and order of this court (Docs. 41 &
42) were returned as undeliverable. The address was verified,
updated, and resent. There is no indication in the record
that the report and recommendation was not deliverable. On
February 9, 2017, Parks filed the instant motion.
motion for reconsideration, Parks alleges that this court
erred in dismissing his case pursuant to Rule 41(b) because
it failed to consider the Poulis factors (Doc. 44,
p. 2) and because it did not give him an opportunity to
explain his failure to comply with its order before
dismissing his case sua sponte (id. at 3).
for reconsideration serve primarily to correct manifest
errors of law or fact in a prior decision of the court.
See United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 288 (3d
Cir. 2003). Under Rule 59(e), “a judgment may be
altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration
establishes at least one of the following grounds: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the
need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Café
ex rel Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir. 1999). Motions for reconsideration may also be
appropriate in instances “where, for example, the
[c]ourt has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a
decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the
[c]ourt by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension.” Reaves v. Pa. State
Police, Civ. No. 09-cv-2549, 2014 WL 486741, *3 (M.D.
Pa. Feb. 6, 2014) (quoting Rohrbach v. AT&T Nassau
Metals Corp., 902 F.Supp. 523, 527 (M.D. Pa. 1995)).
“A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a
means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as
an attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement between the
[c]ourt and the litigant.” Ogden v. Keystone
Residence, 226 F.Supp.2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002).
“Likewise, reconsideration motions may not be used to
raise new arguments or present evidence that could have been
raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Hill v.
Tamac Corp., Civ. No. 05-cv-1148, 2006 WL 529044, *2
(M.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2006) (citing McDowell Oil Serv., Inc.
v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 817 F.Supp. 538, 541
(M.D. Pa. 1993)).
magistrate judge and this court did address the six factors
set forth in Poulis. (See Doc. 39, pp. 9-12; Doc.
41, pp. 2-4.) However, both the magistrate and this court
also considered the merits of Parks' case and dismissed
the complaint. The only remaining issue in the case was a
deliberate indifference to Parks' medical needs. The
undisputed facts supported the grant of a motion to dismiss
and for summary judgment based on lack of merit.
claims that he did not have a sufficient opportunity to
explain his failure to comply with its order. (Order not
identified by Parks.)
this proceeding, Parks has failed to file a brief in
opposition to the motion to dismiss and for summary judgment
after being ordered to do so several times by the magistrate
judge and being granted three extensions of time to do so.
complaint was not dismissed sua sponte alone, but
after a thorough ...