BORDAMONTE v. LORA et al

Filing 123

ORDER denying 116 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 12/16/20. (gh, )

Case 2:17-cv-02642-WJM-MF Document 123 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 2479

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT Of NEW JERSEY
ROY BORDAMONTE
Plaintiff

17-cv-2642

V.

HETOR LORA, LUIS GUZMAN, GARY
SCHAER, ALEX BLANCO, RALPH
DANNA, CARLOS FIGUEROA, individually
and in their official capacities, and the CITY
OF PASSAIC.

ORDER

Defendants.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:

Before the Court is Plaintiff Roy Bordarnonte’s Motion for Reconsideration of this
Court’s October 28, 2020 Order granting Defendants’ summary judgment motions. ECF
No. 116. The Court will reconsider a prior order only where a different outcome is justified
by: (1) intervening change in law; (2) availability of new evidence not previously available;
or a (3) need to correct a clear error of law or manifest injustice. United States v. Davis,
05-cr-3$2, 2012 WL 1950217, at *1 (D.N.J. May 30, 2012), aff’d, 514 F. App’x 97 (3d
Cir. 2013) (cleaned up and citations omitted). Plaintiffs reconsideration motion is, in
substantial part, copied verbatim from Plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment.
Compare ECF No. 116-2 at 2-6, 7-12 with ECF No. 96. The Court already carefully
considered Plaintiffs opposition for summary judgment. The limited portions of
Plaintiffs filing that the Court has not already considered do not present any of the three
grounds for reconsidering the Court’s October 28, 2020 Order. Finally, because Plaintiff
filed his Motion for Reconsideration 15 days after the Court entered its Order granting
summary judgment, it is untimely. See Local Rule 7.1(i) (“a motion for reconsideration
shall be served and filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment on the
original motion. .“); Bridges v. Co/yin, 136 F. Supp. 3d 620, 629 (3d Cir. 2015) (holding
that the court did not need to reach the merits of the movant’s claims because the motion
for reconsideration was untimely).
.

IT IS on this 16th day of December, 2020, ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration, ECF No. 116, is DENIED.

U.S.D.J.