Ally v. Myers et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 46 Motion for Reconsideration re 46 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Jonathan Ally Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 1/6/23 (ep)

Case 1:18-cv-00725-MEM Document 50 Filed 01/06/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JONATHAN ALLY
Plaintiff,
v.
KAREN FELICA DUTEAVICH
MYERS, et al.
Defendants.

:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-725

:

(JUDGE MANNION)

:
:
ORDER

On July 24, 2019, the court issued an Order, (Doc. 44), adopting the
Report and Recommendation of Judge Mehalchick as the decision of the
court, (Doc. 41). Plaintiff filed a letter with the court on May 12, 2022 that will
be construed as a motion for reconsideration, (Doc. 46).
First, the Third Circuit has applied the time limitations of Rule 59(e) and
60(b) to a motion for reconsideration. United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282
(3d Cir. 2003). As plaintiff is requesting to alter or amend a judgment, Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) applies. 1 Under Rule 59(e), “A motion to alter
or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of
judgment.” As plaintiff’s motion comes almost three years after the order
Even if the court construed the letter as a Rule 60(b) motion, Plaintiff’s
motion would still be untimely because a Rule 60(b) motion must be made
no more than one year after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
1

Case 1:18-cv-00725-MEM Document 50 Filed 01/06/23 Page 2 of 3

adopting the Report and Recommendation of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc. 44),
the motion is untimely.
Even if the motion was timely, plaintiff does not allege any grounds to
grant the motion. “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Harsco v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). “Accordingly, a
judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration
shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available
when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Howard
Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir.
2010) (quoting Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)); Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scott
Petroleum, LLC, 73 F. Supp. 3d 488, 491 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (Generally,
reconsideration motions should be granted sparingly). “The standard for
granting a motion for reconsideration is a stringent one … [A] mere
disagreement with the court does not translate into a clear error of law.”
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, 73 F.Supp. 3d at 491 (quoting Mpala v. Smith,

-2-

Case 1:18-cv-00725-MEM Document 50 Filed 01/06/23 Page 3 of 3

2007 WL 136750, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2007), aff'd, 241 Fed.Appx. 3 (3d
Cir. 2007)) (alteration in original).
The burden for reconsideration is on the moving party and Ally clearly
does not demonstrate that any of the three grounds exist in his case, which
are required for the court to grant reconsideration. Further, since Judge
Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation as well as this court’s Order,
which are the subject of Ally’s instant motion, gave thorough explanations,
the court will not repeat this discussion. Also, simply because Ally is unhappy
with the results of the court’s Order, “is an insufficient basis to grant [him]
relief.” Kropa v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 716 F.Supp.2d 375, 378 (M.D. Pa.
2010) (citation omitted).
Thus, plaintiff’s motion for the court to reconsider, (Doc. 44), is
DENIED.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion____

MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: January 6, 2023
18-725-01

-3-