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

Case 1:04-cv-01202-Gl\/IS Document 40 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CHARLES M. ROBINSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1202 (GMS)
)
)
STANLEY TAYLOR, PAUL HOWARD, )
THOMAS CARROLL, BETTY BURRIS, ) F I I- E D
MAJOR HOLMAN, RONALD DRAKE, )
CPL. L. M. MERSON, LT. GODWIN, and ) ‘ f
C/O THURMAN STANLEY, ) L ‘ '“‘ ‘ ‘
)
Defendants. ) D&?hig$‘g‘r;1iE(E.i\)vl•i.E;E
ORDER
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2004, Charles Robinson ("Robinson"), who is presently
incarcerated at the Delaware Correctional Center (the "DCC"), filed a pro se civil rights acti n,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Stanley Taylor ("Taylor"), Paul Howard ("Howard"), Tho as
Carroll ("Carroll"), Betty Burris ("Burris"), Major Holman ("Holman"), Ronald Drake ("Drak "),
Cpl. L. M. Merson ("Mers0n"), Lt. Godwin ("Godwin") and C/O Thurman Stanley ("Stan1e ")
(collectively, the "defendants");
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2005, Robinson filed a letter with the court seeking prelimin ry
injunctive relief against the defendants (D.I. 25), requesting the court to enjoin the defendants fr m
interfering with his access to legal services at the DCC.
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2005, the court issued an Order (D.I. 35) denying Robinso ’s
motion based on his failure to present sufficient evidence of irreparable harm;

Case 1 :04-cv-01202-GMS Document 40 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2005, Robinson filed a Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 37), ask` g
the court to reconsider its June 30, 2005 Order;
WHEREAS, a motion for reconsideration should be granted only "sparingly"‘;
WHEREAS, in this district, motions for reconsideration are granted only if it appears t at
the court has patently misunderstood a party, has made a decision outside the adversarial iss es
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 he
present case;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The plaintiff` s Motion for Reconsideration (D.I. 37) is DENIED.
ti n · .. ,_ :;=
Dated: September , 2005 I ',___:
"" UNI E F TES DISTRI
I Tristrata Tech. Inc. v. ICNPharms., Inc., 313 F. Supp. 2d 405, 407 (D. Del. 2004); .» rr
v. Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087, 1090 (D. Del. 1991).
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. Su p.
at 1090 (citing same).
2