Young v. Stevenson

Filing 34

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 7/26/2012.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tommy Young,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden Stevenson,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:11-2374-CMC-SVH

ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this petition seeking a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter comes before the court upon
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion seeking discovery
[Entry #21]. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), all pretrial proceedings have been referred to the undersigned.
Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are appropriately granted only
in narrow circumstances: (1) the discovery of new evidence, (2) an intervening
development or change in the controlling law, or (3) the need to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. American Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505
(4th Cir. 2003). Petitioner has not identified any of the narrow circumstances appropriate
for granting a motion to reconsider. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is
denied. [Entry #21].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 26, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge