HANDY v. VARNER et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration and VACATING Text Order of May 9, 2013 requiring Defendants to file a response to the Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 05/23/2013. (bsc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DERRALD HANDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIT MANAGER AMY VARNER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-1091
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 41) filed by
Plaintiff, Derrald Handy. Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate its Memorandum Order entered
April 12, 2013, in which the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss / Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 17) filed by Defendant Doctor Mollura.
The Court after having thoroughly reviewed the Motion for Reconsideration and the
Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 38) and Memorandum Order (ECF No. 39) entered April 12,
2013, finds that Plaintiff has presented no extraordinary circumstances or arguments which meet
the high standard required to justify reconsideration. Generally, a motion for reconsideration
will only be granted if: (1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new
evidence, which was not previously available, has become available; or (3) necessary to correct a
clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909
(3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 47 U.S. 1171 (1986). Plaintiff has pointed to no intervening change
in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error of law, or manifest injustice. Motions for
reconsideration are not designed to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple. Bhatnagar

1

v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995). Therefore, the Court finds that
the arguments raised in the instant motion do not warrant further analytical discussion.
Fatal to the pending motion, nothing new has been supplemented to the record by the
Motion for Reconsideration.
AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2013, it is hereby ORDERED that the MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by Plaintiff is hereby DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the Text Order of May 9, 2013 requiring Defendants to file
a response to the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby VACATED.

s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:

DERRALD HANDY
AS2003
PO Box 244
Graterford, PA 19426
Scott A. Bradley
Office of the Attorney General
Email: [e-mail]
Jesse A. Torisky, Esquire
Eisenberg & Torisky
Email: [e-mail]

2