Opinion
Civil Action No. 16-1062
08-29-2018
RAYCO SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. GFS ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's pro se Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 32), in which Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate its Memorandum Order (Doc. 31) adopting in part and rejecting in part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29). Plaintiff's Motion objects to the merits of the Court's decisions on several of his claims. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 33) on the same day he filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration, and that Plaintiff's appeal is presently pending before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Generally, a motion for reconsideration will only be granted on one of the following three grounds: (1) if there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) if new evidence, which was not previously available, has become available; or (3) if it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See Howard Hess Dental, 602 F.3d at 251 (citing Max's Seafood Café by Lou Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)).
A motion for reconsideration "addresses only factual and legal matters that the Court may have overlooked . . . . It is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink what [it] had already thought through rightly or wrongly." Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.Pa. 1993) (internal citation and quotes omitted). Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly. Rossi v. Schlarbaum, 600 F. Supp.2d 650, 670 (E.D.Pa. 2009).
The Court finds there is no basis upon which the Court should grant this Motion. Plaintiff's Motion does not satisfy any of the three possible grounds to grant a motion for reconsideration as it merely presents previously available legal arguments in support of Plaintiff's claims.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 32) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. August 29, 2018
s/Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail): RAYCO SAUNDERS
10214 Frankstown Rd
Pittsburgh, PA 15235