JORDAN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 84

OPINION. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 7/5/2014. (gxh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Brucestan T. JORDAN,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 10-4398
v.
Edmond CICCHI, et al.,
OPINION
Defendants.

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
This matter appears before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Brucestan Jordan’s motion for
reconsideration. (Doc. No. 82). Defendants oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 838). The Court has
decided the motion after considering the parties’ written submissions and without oral argument
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For the reasons given below, Plaintiff’s
motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
On May 16, 2014, this Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc.
No. 79). On June 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed the motion for reconsideration currently before the
Court. (Doc. No. 82).
DISCUSSION
“It is well-established in this district that a motion for reconsideration is an extremely
limited procedural vehicle.” Resorts Int’l v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, 830 F. Supp. 826, 831
(D.N.J. 1992). To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show one of the
following: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that

1

was not available when the court rendered judgment; or (3) a 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). Under the third prong, the movant must show that “dispositive
factual matters or controlling decisions of law were brought to the court's attention but not
considered.” P. Schoenfeld Asset Management LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 353
(D.N.J. 2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff fails to show that there was an intervening change in law, that any material
evidence was previously unavailable, or that the Court made a clear error of law or fact. After
thorough review of the record and Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met
the standard for a motion for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the motion is denied.

/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J
Dated: July 5, 2014

2