Hampton v. Wetzel

Filing 109

ORDER denying pltf's motion 100 for reconsideration. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/5/18. (ki)

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

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:14-CV-1367
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2018, upon consideration of
Hampton’s motion (Doc. 100) for reconsideration, and it appearing that Hampton
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 that the 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 and

reargues matters already disposed of by the court,1 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

In the instant motion, Hampton contends that Dr. Ekizian, who is not a
party to this action, prescribed him Tylenol, and that defendant Bernard stopped
that prescription. In support of this contention, Hampton submits a June 2014
Medication Administration Record (“MAR”) in an effort to establish that defendants
“lied” about not canceling Dr. Ekizian’s June 3, 2014 order for Tylenol. (Doc. 101 at
2). The MAR reveals that on June 3, 2014, Dr. Ekizian prescribed Extra Strength
Tylenol to Hampton that was set to expire on August 31, 2014. (Doc. 103 at 4; Doc.
104-1 at 8, 12). On June 20, 2014, Dr. Ekizian discontinued the prescription for
Extra Strength Tylenol, and changed the prescription to regular Tylenol, which was
set to expire on October 17, 2014. Id. On June 25, 2014, Dr. Ekizian discontinued
the prescription. Id. Also on June 25, 2014, Deborah L. Barndt, who is not a party
to this action, prescribed regular Tylenol until October 22, 2014, but discontinued
the prescription on July 10, 2014. Id. The MAR thus reveals that neither defendant
Bernard, nor any of the other named defendants, were involved in the decisions to
discontinue Hampton’s Tylenol prescription. Id.
1

Furthermore, the court previously found that although Hampton had a
prescription for Tylenol, defendant Bernard did not exhibit deliberate indifference
to Hampton’s medical needs when she advised him to obtain over-the-counter
medication from the commissary in accordance with official prison policy. (Doc. 98
at 10, 36). The evidence establishes that defendant Bernard continually encouraged
Hampton to take Tylenol and, pursuant to prison policy, all inmates are to purchase
over-the-counter medication, such as Tylenol, from the commissary. (Doc. 98 at 3536; Doc. 82 at 45, 50). The court finds that its previous order is not troubled by
manifest errors of law or fact and Hampton has not presented any evidence, which
if previously presented, might have affected the decision.

considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the
moving party’s burden.’”), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 100) is
DENIED.

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