Opinion
C.A. No. 07C-01-202 MMJ
04-12-2012
KENNETH T. DEPUTY, Plaintiff, v. DR. CONLAN, JAMES WELCH, and THOMAS CARROLL, Defendants.
Kenneth T. Deputy, Plaintiff, Pro Se
On Plaintiff Kenneth T. Deputy's
Motion for Reargument
DENIED
ORDER
Kenneth T. Deputy, Plaintiff, Pro Se JOHNSTON, J.
1. By Order dated January 31, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff's fourth Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
2. Plaintiff Kenneth T. Deputy has moved for reargument. Attached to his motion are three letters, reflecting unsuccessful attempts by plaintiff to obtain private counsel.
3. The purpose of moving for reargument is to seek reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of law. Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. "A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court."
Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (1969).
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, Del. Super., 2002 WL 356371, Witham, J. (Feb. 21, 2002); Whitsett v. Capital School District, Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-04-032 Vaughn, J. (Jan. 28, 1999); Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgeley, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994).
--------
4. The Court has reviewed and considered plaintiff's motion and the additional letters. These submissions do not provide a basis for the Court to alter its opinion. Further, the Court did not overlook a controlling precedent or legal principle, or misapprehend the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________
The Honorable Mary M. Johnston