From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dusenbery v. Cerney

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 14, 2007
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1869 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1869.

January 14, 2007


ORDER


AND NOW, this 14th day of January, 2008, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 16), asking the court to vacate and/or alter the order of court dated January 8, 2008 (Doc. 15), 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. 16) is DENIED.

While plaintiff seeks additional time in which to file objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, plaintiff has failed to establish that such objections would alter the conclusion set forth by the court in the order dated January 8, 2008.


Summaries of

Dusenbery v. Cerney

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 14, 2007
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1869 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2007)
Case details for

Dusenbery v. Cerney

Case Details

Full title:LARRY DEAN DUSENBERY, Plaintiff v. TODD CERNEY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 14, 2007

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1869 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2007)