Thrower v. USA et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying pltf's motion for reconsideration 20 of ct's 10/19/11 order severing & transferring claims to USDC for Eastern Dist of KY 13 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 11/14/11. (ki)

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

WILLIAM THROWER,
Plaintiff
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-1663
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2011, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 20) of this court’s order of October 19, 2011 (Doc.
13), severing and transferring certain claims to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky, 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); 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.’”), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 20) is DENIED.

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