From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Panton v. B.O.P

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 26, 2007
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-0809 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-0809.

April 26, 2007


ORDER


AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2007, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 49) pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in which he seeks reconsideration of this court's order (Doc. 47) denying his motion to amend his amended complaint (Doc. 27), and it appearing that a proper Rule 59(e) motion "must rely on one of three major grounds: `(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available previously]; [or], (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice,'"North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna Reinsurance Co., 52 F.2d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985), and it appearing that plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the court made a manifest error of law, that new evidence has become available, or that any new law has arisen, and it further appearing that plaintiff simply disagrees with the ruling of the court, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 49) is DENIED.


Summaries of

Panton v. B.O.P

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 26, 2007
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-0809 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2007)
Case details for

Panton v. B.O.P

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT PANTON, Plaintiff v. B.O.P. et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Apr 26, 2007

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-0809 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2007)