Noble v. Cerino

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 8/3/2016. (cna)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

In re:

)
)
) Misc. Action No. 16-177 -SLR
)
)

THOMAS E. NOBLE,
Movant.

THOMAS E. NOBLE,
Plaintiff,

v.
JOHN A. CERINO and anyone else
colluding with him,
Defendant.

)

}

}

)

)

)

}

}

)

MEMORANDUM

At Wilmington this j~day of August, 2016, having considered movant's motion
for reconsideration (D.I. 4);
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (D.I. 7) is denied, for the
following reasons:
1. Motions for Reconsideration. Movant moves for reconsideration of the
June 29, 2016 memorandum and order (D.1. 2, 3) that denied his motion to ·file. Movant
seeks reconsideration on the grounds that the undersigned is ethically barred from
movant's cases and erred in denying the motion.
2. The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rei. Lou-

Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion
... must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law;

(2) the availability of new evidence; 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)
(citing N. River Ins. Co. v. C/GNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).
3. After carefully considering the motion, the court finds that movant has failed
to demonstrate grounds that warrant reconsideration of the court's June 29,2016
memorandum and order. Therefore, the motion will be denied.
4. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will deny the motion for
reconsideration. (0.1.4) A separate order shall issue.

UNITED STAT S DISTRICT JUDGE

2