Green v. Sneath et al

Filing 178

ORDER denying pltf's motion for reconsideration 169 of court's order 167 denying pltf's MSJ. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 08/30/12. (ki)

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

TYRONE GREEN,
Plaintiff
v.
DET. SNEATH, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-0154
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2012, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 169) of this court’s Order of March 26, 2012 (Doc.
167), denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendants’
cross 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) (collecting cases); 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.’”), but, rather, reargues matters already argued
and disposed of by the Court, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc.
169) is DENIED.

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

2