Lofton v. Wetzel et al

Filing 104

ORDER denying pltf's motion for reconsideration 100 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/20/16. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JERMAINE LOFTON,
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN WETZEL, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-1133
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2016, upon consideration of plaintiff‟s
motion (Doc. 100) for reconsideration of the court‟s order ruling on plaintiff‟s
motion to compel discovery, and it appearing that plaintiff fails to demonstrate
reliance on one of three major grounds needed for a proper motion for
reconsideration, North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218
(3d Cir. 1995) (stating three major grounds include “(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” ), but,
instead, simply disagrees with the court‟s decision, see Waye v. First Citizen‟s Nat‟l
Bank, 846 F. Supp. 310, 314 (M.D. Pa. 1994) (finding that “[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)
(holding “[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 plaintiff‟s motion (Doc. 100) is
DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

2