Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00877-JJF Document 46 Filed 08/16/2007 Page1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROLAND C. ANDERSON, :
Plaintiff, Z
v. ; Civil Action No. 05-877-JJF
GENERAL MOTORS CORP., E
Defendant. E
QBLLE
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion For
Reconsideration (D.I. 35) of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Q
Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment (D.I. 32),
and on June 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Reconsideration
(D.I 36) of the Court’s Memorandum Order denying Plaintiff’s f
request for appointment of counsel (D.I. 34); Q
WHEREAS, the purpose of granting a motion for
reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact,
present newly discovered evidence, or to prevent manifest
injustice. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicky, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999); North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reins., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218
(3d Cir. 1995);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has not identified an error of law or
fact, newly discovered evidence, or manifest injustice sufficient
to allow the Court to grant the motions for reconsideration;
WHEREAS, with respect to Plaintiff’s request for appointment
of counsel, the Court has very limited authority concerning
“appointment” of counsel, and in fact, by statute the Court may

Case 1:05-cv-00877-JJF Document 46 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
only “request” an attorney to represent a party (28 U.S.C. §
I915(e)(I) (providing that "[tlhe court may request an attorney
to represent any person unable to afford counsel"); Montgomery v.
Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002));
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions For
Reconsideration (D.I. 35, 36) are DENIED.
August KL, 2007 A i"- ~ ~— ·~
UMI|ED *A‘ DISTRICTQQUDGE