IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RAYMOND W. McLAUGHLIN, JR. : Civ. No. 4:14-CV-01674 

:

Plaintiff, :

: (Judge Brann)

v. :

:

V.P. TYLER and JOSUE BRISENO :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM

January 23, 2015

I. BACKGROUND

Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF

No. 10) of the Order, dated November 24, 2014, adopting the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab (ECF No. 8). Within that

same Order, the Court also denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF

No. 7) as moot following the dismissal of his complaint. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. LEGAL STANDARD

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

motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present

newly discovered evidence.” Harsco v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.

1

Case 4:14-cv-01674-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 5
1985). A court should grant a motion for reconsideration if the party seeking

reconsideration shows: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the

availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the

motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact

or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).

“A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that the

Court simply rethink a decision it has already made.” Douris v. Schweiker, 229 F.

Supp. 2d 391, 408 (E.D. Pa. 2002). In such a motion, “parties are not free to relitigate issues that the Court has already decided.” United States v. Jasin, 292 F.

Supp. 2d 670, 676 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (internal citation and quotations omitted). “The

standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is a stringent one . . . . [A] mere

disagreement with the court does not translate into a clear error of law.” Mpala v.

Smith, CIV. 3:CV-06-841, 2007 WL 136750, *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2007) (Kosik,

J.) aff'd, 241 F. App'x 3 (3d Cir. 2007). “Because federal courts have a strong

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

sparingly.” Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D.

Pa. 1995). 

Furthermore, within the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Local Rule 7.10

2

Case 4:14-cv-01674-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 5
applies when a motion for reconsideration is not filed for the purpose of amending

or altering a judgment pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Specifically, Local Rule 7.10 permits a party to seek reconsideration within

fourteen (14) days of entry of an order provided that the motion for reconsideration

is accompanied by a supporting brief. 

B. ANALYSIS

Because the Plaintiff’s Motion appears to confuse the Court’s grounds

for adopting the Report and Recommendation with its grounds for denying his

Motion to Appoint Counsel, the Court will treat the Plaintiff’s Motion as a request

for reconsideration of both issues. 

Within his Motion for Reconsideration, the Plaintiff failed to cite a change in

controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error

of law. Plaintiff instead states “his absolute need for appointed counsel” because

of both medical reasons and his apparent need for help in producing the defective

headphones at issue in his underlying claim. (ECF No. 10). Although these

aforementioned assertions appear to support only an argument for reconsideration

of the Court’s denial of appointed counsel, they nevertheless fail to assert evidence

not already included in Court documents. Concerning the Order’s dismissal of his

complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the

3

Case 4:14-cv-01674-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 5
Plaintiff fails outright within his Motion to present new evidence or controlling law

to contradict the Court’s reasoning. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to make the

showing necessary for Court reconsideration of its Order adopting the report and

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

Furthermore, the Plaintiff also failed to abide by Middle District of

Pennsylvania Local Rule 7.10 which requires that a Motion for Reconsideration be

accompanied by a supporting brief when it is not made under Rule 59 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this case, Plaintiff failed to file a supporting

brief within the required fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Order in question. 

Because the Plaintiff’s Motion is not accompanied by a supporting brief and

amounts to no more than a re-litigation of his previously unsuccessful and

dismissed claims, the Court will consequently dismiss this Motion and uphold the

finality of its prior Order.

III. CONCLUSION 

The Plaintiff’s Motion fails to present viable grounds for altering the Court’s

Order of November 24, 2014. Specifically, the Plaintiff fails to cite a change in

controlling law, produce new evidence, or, alternatively, demonstrate the need to

correct a clear error of law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

is denied.

4

Case 4:14-cv-01674-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 5
An appropriate Order follows.

 

BY THE COURT:

s/Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

5

Case 4:14-cv-01674-MWB Document 11 Filed 01/23/15 Page 5 of 5