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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?