Corley v. Vance et al

Filing 348

ORDER denying 342 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to point to controlling decisions or data that the Court overlooked, or that might reasonably be expected to alter the Court's conclusions. Instead, Plain tiff has largely repeated his prior arguments. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 342. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 12/16/2019) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROYCE CORLEY,
Plaintiff,
-v.CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., et al.,

15 Civ. 1800 (KPF)
ORDER

Defendants.
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of his
“Omnibus Pretrial Motion,” filed on October 8, 2019. (Dkt. #342). The Court
had previously denied Plaintiff’s motion on September 17, 2019, for largely the
reasons provided by Defendants in their opposition letter. (Dkt. #341).
On a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must “point to
controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked – matters, in other
words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by
the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp. Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 256-57 (2d Cir. 1995)
(internal citations omitted) (noting that the standard for granting motions for
reconsideration is “strict”); accord Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935
F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019). “Such a motion should not be made to reflexively []
reargue those issues already considered when a party does not like the way the
original motion was resolved.” In re Optimal, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 387 (quoting
Makas v. Orlando, No. 06 Civ. 14305 (DAB) (AJP), 2008 WL 2139131, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “Compelling
reasons for granting a motion for reconsideration are limited to an intervening

change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17
Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2018 WL 3632520, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2018) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation
Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)).
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to point to controlling decisions
or data that the Court overlooked, or that might reasonably be expected to alter
the Court’s conclusions. Instead, Plaintiff has largely repeated his prior
arguments. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his
burden on a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The
Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 342.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2019
New York, New York
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

A copy of this Order was mailed by Chambers to:
Royce Corley
68011-054
Federal Correctional Institution
Petersburg Low P.O. Box 1000
Petersburg, Virginia 23804-1000

2