Smith v. Hanuska et al

Filing 185

ORDER denying pltf's motion to alter judgment 180 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 07/17/12. (ki)

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

STEWART C. SMITH
Plaintiff
v.
OFFICER JOHN HANUSKA and
DAVID BIXLER
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-0889
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2012, upon consideration of the motion to
alter judgment (Doc. 180) filed by plaintiff Stewart C. Smith (“Smith”) on January 3,
2012, and the court noting that on December 6, 2011, a jury returned a verdict in
favor of defendant John Hanuska, and it appearing that the present motion is a retitled but otherwise exact copy of Smith’s prior motion for summary judgment (Doc.
132) that was ultimately denied (see Doc. 136), and that the court has since denied
three motions for reconsideration of the denial of Smith’s motions for summary
judgment, (see Docs. 100, 113, 126), and the court finding that “[a] judgment may be
altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration establishes at least one of
the following grounds: ‘(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the
motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice,’” Sibio v. Borough of Dunmore, Civ. A. No.
3:06–CV–0095, 2007 WL 1450419, at *1 (M.D. Pa. May 15, 2007) (quoting Max’s

Seafood Café, by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)), and
the court concluding that Smith has presented no grounds upon which the court
may alter the judgment, but has rather reasserted, for the fifth time, the same
summary judgment arguments, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to alter
judgment (Doc. 180) is DENIED.

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