Thrower v. USA et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying pltf's motion for reconsiderations 76 & denying pltf's motion for ext of time 82 to file reply to defts' br in opp to same. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 11/05/12. (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 5th day of November, 2012, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 76) of this court’s Order of August 24, 2012 (Doc.
72), granting, inter alia, defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground
that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he administratively exhausted his Bivens
failure to protect claim and his medical negligence FTCA claim, 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 Court1, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc.
76) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 82) for an
extension of time to file a reply to defendants’ brief in opposition to the motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.

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

Plaintiff simply disagrees with the disposition of the issue of administrative
exhaustion of his Bivens failure to protect claim and his medical negligence FTCA
claim. (Doc. 77, 4-8.)
1