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


File Size: 21.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: October 6, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 371 Words, 2,181 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8774/30.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware ( 21.8 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :04-cv-01422-GIVIS Document 30 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JEROME K. HAMILTON, a.k.a. )
CHEH A Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1422 GMS
CATHY L. GUESSFORD, REBECCA )
MCBRIDE, ROBERT F. SNYDER, )
THOMAS L. CARROLL, and STANLEY )
W. TAYLOR, Jr. )
Defendants. )
ORDER
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2004, Jerome K. Hamilton ("Hamilton") tiled this pro se civil
rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Cathy Guessford ("Guessford"), Rebecca
McBride ("McBride"), Robert Snyder ("Snyder"), Thomas Carroll, ("Carroll"), and Stanley Taylor,
Jr. ("Taylor");
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2005, Hamilton tiled a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (D.I.
9);·
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2005, the court issued an Order (D.I. 22) denying Hamilton’s
motion for appointment of counsel;
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, Hamilton filed a Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 24), asking
the court to reconsider its May 27, 2005 Order; _
WHEREAS, a motion for reconsideration should be granted only "sparinglyF";
I T ristrata Tech. Inc. v. ICN Pharms., Inc., 313 F. Supp. 2d 405, 407 (D. Del. 2004); Karr
v. Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087, 1090 (D. Del. 1991). `

Case 1:04-cv—01422-G|\/IS Document 30 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, in this district, motions for reconsideration are granted only if it appears that
the court has patently misunderstood a party, has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehensionz; and
WHEREAS, the court concludes that none of the three above-cited conditions exist in the
present case;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 24) is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated: October 5 , 2005
L D AT ESD S IUDGE
F I L E D
T COURT
DIQTIRTOTTSFCDELAWARE
2 See, e. g., Shering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293, 295 (D. Del. 1998);
Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990) (citing Above the Belt,
Inc. v. Mel Bonhannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D. Va. 1983)); see also Karr, 768 F. Supp.
at 1090 (citing same).
2