Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-0616.
September 2, 2008
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of September, 2008, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 80), of the memorandum and order of court dated August 22, 2008 (Doc. 72), in which plaintiff seeks to reinstate the dismissed intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against defendant Krantz and to add a new Fourteenth Amendment claim on behalf of S.J.W., and the court finding that there are no manifest errors of law or fact in the challenged order, see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985) ("The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. . . ."), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 80) is DENIED.
(See Doc. 81 at 3 ("[T]here was [a claim] inadvertently left off Plaintiff's amended complaint, the 14th Amendment violation perpetrated by Cathcart, Anderson and Stone against minor SJW.")).