Walsh v. Krantz et al

Filing 178

ORDER denying pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 139 of 2/11/09 order of ct 130 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 03/17/09. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RORY M. WALSH, individually and as Natural Guardian of C.R.W., Plaintiff v. DR. ROBERT KRANTZ, et al., Defendants

: : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-0616 (Judge Conner)

ORDER AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2009, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion (Doc. 139) for reconsideration of the order of court (Doc. 130) dated February 11, 2009, which denied plaintiff's appeal (Doc. 122) from the magistrate judge's order (Doc. 121) of January 20, 2009, and the court finding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the challenged order,1 see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotniki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985) ("The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence . . . ."); see also Max's Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
1

As this court has previously observed, (see Doc. 158 n.1) plaintiff appears to misapprehend the purpose of a Rule 60 motion for reconsideration. "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 Court and the litigant." Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ. A. 99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001); see also Lester v. Percudani, No. 3:01-CV-1182, 2008 WL 4722749, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2008) (same). Nor is such a motion a mere opportunity for a "second bite at the apple." Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995). Plaintiff's instant motion (Doc. 139) for reconsideration simply repeats arguments raised on two previous occasions. (See Docs. 90, 123.) The court has considered these arguments and rejected them. It is time for plaintiff to move forward.

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 139) for reconsideration is DENIED.

S/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge

2