Mincy et al v. DeParlos et al

Filing 102

ORDER denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 93 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 07/11/11. (ki)

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

HILTON KARRIEM MINCY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN DEPARLOS, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08-CV-0507
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2011, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 93), in which he seeks reconsideration of this
Court’s Memorandum and Order dated March 24, 2011 (Doc. 91) denying plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment and granting defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, and it appearing that plaintiff fails to demonstrate one of three major
grounds for reconsideration ((1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence [not available previously]; [or], (3) the need to correct
clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice.’”)), North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted), and that he
primarily seeks to reargue matters already argued and disposed of because he
disagrees with the Court’s determination, see Waye v. First Citizen’s Nat’l Bank,
846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa.) (“A motion for reconsideration is not to be used to
reargue matters already argued and disposed of.”), aff’d, 31 F.3d 1174 (3d Cir. 1994);
see also Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ’g Corp., 825 F. Supp.
1216, 1220 (D. N.J. 1993) (citations omitted) (“A party seeking reconsideration must

show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation of the
cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision
fails to carry the moving party’s burden.’”), and the court recognizing that
“[b]ecause federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions
for reconsideration should be granted sparingly,” Continental Cas. Co. v.
Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D.Pa. 1995), it is hereby ORDERED
that the motion (Doc. 93) is DENIED.

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