MINCY v. MCCONNELL et al

Filing 112

ORDER denying 111 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 07/05/2012. (kas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HILTON KARRIEM MINCY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SECURITY LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM P. McCONNELL, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:09-cv-236

ORDER

Presently pending before the Court in the above-captioned case is a motion by
the Plaintiff, Hilton Karriem Mincy, for reconsideration of the Memorandum Order
entered on April 25, 2012 [106]. To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant
must establish: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence ...; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice.” Brodzki v. Fox Broadcasting, 464 Fed. Appx. 43, 44 (3d Cir. 2012)
(quoting Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir.1999)). Because my review of Plaintiff’s motion reveals no basis under the
foregoing standard justifying reconsideration of my April 25 Memorandum Order, the
Plaintiff’s motion [111] shall be, and hereby is, DENIED.
s/

Sean J. McLaughlin
SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN
United States District Judge

cm:

All parties of record.