Banks v. Central Intelligence Agency et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 6 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/30/14. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FREDERICK BANKS,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
:
AGENCY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-3014
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2014, upon consideration of the pro se
plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 6) for reconsideration, 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. Feb. 4, 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); also Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth
Adver. & Publ’g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. June 15, 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. 6) is summarily DENIED.

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