Adderly v. Wilson et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 5/25/2016. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CPL. WILSON, et al.,
:
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:
NATHANIEL L. ADDERLY,

Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-1945
(Judge Kosik)

MEMORANDUM
Currently before this Court are Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 26) to Magistrate Judge
Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 22), recommending that
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 21) the order dismissing this case (Doc. 20), be denied.
For the reasons that follow, we will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and deny Plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration.
I. BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are set forth in the memorandum granting Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 19). After granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 21) of this Court’s July 29, 2015 Order (Doc. 20). The Magistrate
Judge issued his R&R, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration be denied.
This Court subsequently issued an order to Plaintiff, ordering him to file both a brief in
support of his motion for reconsideration and objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc.
24). Plaintiff filed his brief in support (Doc. 25) on November 6, 2015 and his Objections to
the R&R on November 10, 2015 (Doc. 26). Defendants filed their brief in opposition on
November 20, 2015 (Doc. 27).
Plaintiff submits two objections to the R&R. First, that the R&R is moot to the extent
it dismisses his motion for reconsideration on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to file a brief in
support. Second, that Plaintiff’s complaint primarily sounds in retaliation, and that he has

produced new evidence, in the form of transcripts, to support his claim.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are filed to an R&R of a Magistrate Judge, we must make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); see also Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). In doing so, we
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. Although our review is de
novo, we are permitted to rely upon the Magistrate Judge’s proposed recommendations to the
extent we, in the exercise of sound discretion, deem proper. See United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); see also Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984). For the
portions not objected to, the usual practice of the district court is to give “reasoned
consideration” to a magistrate judge’s report prior to adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson, 812
F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987).
It is to be noted that a motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. Its
purpose is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Accordingly, a party seeking
reconsideration must demonstrate at least one of the following grounds prior to the court
altering, or amending, a standing judgment: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court entered judgment; or
(3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s
Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v.
CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). A motion for reconsideration is
appropriate in instances where the court has “patently misunderstood a party, or has made a
decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an
error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Rohrbach v. AT&T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F.
Supp. 523, 527 (M.D. Pa. 1995), vacated in part on other grounds on reconsideration, 915 F.

2

Supp. 712 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99
F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). It may not be used as a means to reargue unsuccessful
theories, or argue new facts or issues that were not presented to the court in the context of the
matter previously decided. Drysdale v. Woerth, 153 F. Supp.2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
“Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for
reconsideration should be granted sparingly.” Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc.,
884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s first argument is moot and of no significance given the fact that the
Magistrate Judge evaluated his motion to reconsider on its merits. While it is true that the
Magistrate Judge’s Report articulates Plaintiff’s failure to file an accompanying brief in
support of his motion, which would procedurally render the motion withdrawn, the Magistrate
Judge does not rest his recommendation on this basis alone. Rather, the Magistrate Judge
provides a detailed Report based upon the merits of Plaintiff’s motion. For this reason,
Plaintiff’s first object is rendered moot.
Next, Plaintiff objects and argues that his retaliation claim is now supported by newly
discovered evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff appends to his Brief in Support of his Motion for
Reconsideration, what appears to be scattered pages of transcripts from Plaintiff’s criminal
proceeding. Thus, in an attempt to satisfy the standard for a motion for reconsideration,
Plaintiff seems to hang his hat on the argument that these scattered pages of transcripts are
“new evidence.” Plaintiff’s interpretation of what constitutes “new evidence” is groundless.
The Court notes that a motion for reconsideration may not be used as a means to
reargue unsuccessful theories, or argue new facts or issues that were not presented to the court
in the context of the matter previously decided. Drysdale, 153 F. Supp.2d at 692 (stating its
inability to “sift through new evidence that, although in existence” previously, was never
presented to the court). Importantly, “ ‘new evidence’, for reconsideration purposes, does not

3

refer to evidence that a party ... submits to the court after an adverse ruling. Rather, new
evidence in this context means evidence that a party could not earlier submit to the court
because that evidence was not previously available.” Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415-16
(3d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted.) “Evidence that is not newly discovered, as so defined,
cannot provide the basis for a successful motion for reconsideration.” Id. (citations omitted).
Plaintiff in the instant matter has failed to present any new evidence, facts or issues
which were not previously in existence and available. Rather, Plaintiff merely reasserts his
same arguments and attaches what appears to be transcripts that were in existence and
previously available to, but not used by, Plaintiff. This simply “cannot provide the basis for a
successful motion for reconsideration.” Blystone, 664 F.3d at 416. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration will be denied as we find no manifest errors of law or fact or newly
discovered evidence.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and
deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court has given reasoned consideration to
the portions of the Report to which there are no objections, and we agree with the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendations An appropriate order follows.

4