IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

KELLY CONARD, 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE,

et al., 

 Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 Civ. No. 4:06-cv-1450 

 

 Judge Sylvia H. Rambo 

M E M O R A N D U M 

 Before the court is a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 80) by Plaintiff 

Conard of this court’s January 25, 2016 memorandum and order (Docs. 78 & 79). 

In that memorandum and order, this court adopted a report and recommendation of 

the magistrate judge, in which he denied Conard’s motion to reopen the captioned 

case. 

I. Legal Standard 

A motion for reconsideration is a device of limited utility. Its purpose is 

to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. 

Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Accordingly, a party 

seeking reconsideration must demonstrate at least one of the following grounds 

prior to the court altering, or amending, a standing judgment: (1) an intervening 

change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not 

available when the court entered judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error 

of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 

Case 4:06-cv-01450-SHR Document 82 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA 

Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). A motion for 

reconsideration is appropriate in instances where the court has “patently 

misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues 

presented to the [c]ourt by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of 

apprehension.” Rohrbach v. AT&T Nassau Metals Corp., 902 F. Supp. 523, 527 

(M.D. Pa. 1995) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 

F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). It may not be used as a means to reargue 

unsuccessful theories, or to argue new facts or issues that were not presented to the 

court in the context of the matter previously decided. Drysdale v. Woerth, 153 F. 

Supp. 2d 678, 682 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “Because federal courts have a strong interest 

in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted 

sparingly.” Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 

(E.D. Pa. 1995). 

II. Discussion 

In her motion to reopen her case (Doc. 73) and in her objections to the 

report and recommendation (Doc. 77), Conard asserted as follows: 

[I]t appears that there is an abundance of evidence which has 

been revealed that has shown that Judges of this Court had a 

long-term bias and prejudice against Mr. Bailey which clearly 

overlapped with the handling of my case, and has given me 

very reasonable cause to believe that I have been adversely 

affected and had my case improperly dismissed as part of a 

Case 4:06-cv-01450-SHR Document 82 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

pattern of conduct to hurt and harm Mr. Bailey and the civil 

rights clients that he represents. 

(Doc. 77, pp. 4-5.) 

 In her motion for reconsideration, Conard does not discuss the Bailey 

issue. Rather, in the instant motion, she attaches documents dating back to 2006, 

2012, 2014, etc. and claims that, in dismissing her case, the court relied upon 

inaccurate and incorrect information placed on the record. However, most of the 

evidence attached to the instant motion was previously submitted in the case sub 

judice. Conard never referred to these documents in her motion to re-open or her 

objections to the report and recommendation. 

III. Conclusion 

There has not been an intervening change in the controlling law, the 

evidence submitted in the instant motion was presented before the judge who 

ultimately dismissed this action, and there is no need to correct a clear error of law 

or fact to prevent manifest injustice. The court notes that judgment in favor of 

Defendants in this case was affirmed on appeal in March 2010. (Doc. 72.) 

For the foregoing reasons, the motion will be dismissed with prejudice. 

 s/Sylvia H. Rambo 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: March 8, 2016 

Case 4:06-cv-01450-SHR Document 82 Filed 03/08/16 Page 3 of 3