Filed: Mar. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM LEONARD P. STARK , District Judge . 1. Introduction. Plaintiff Michael Okpor ("Plaintiff") proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He filed this lawsuit on June 11, 2015, alleging violations of his civil rights, consumer fraud, theft, and breach of contract. (D.I.2) An amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2017. (D.I.7) On March 16, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. ( See D.I. 53) Plaintiff moves for r
Summary: MEMORANDUM LEONARD P. STARK , District Judge . 1. Introduction. Plaintiff Michael Okpor ("Plaintiff") proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He filed this lawsuit on June 11, 2015, alleging violations of his civil rights, consumer fraud, theft, and breach of contract. (D.I.2) An amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2017. (D.I.7) On March 16, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. ( See D.I. 53) Plaintiff moves for re..
More
MEMORANDUM
LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.
1. Introduction. Plaintiff Michael Okpor ("Plaintiff") proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He filed this lawsuit on June 11, 2015, alleging violations of his civil rights, consumer fraud, theft, and breach of contract. (D.I.2) An amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2017. (D.I.7) On March 16, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. (See D.I. 53) Plaintiff moves for reconsideration, a hearing before a three-judge court, and oral argument. (D.I. 55, 56, 57)
2. Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff moves the Court to reopen the case to correct clear errors of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice. (D.I. 55; see also D.I. 56, 57) The motions will be denied.
3. The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted).
4. Plaintiff attempts to reargue the facts of his case. The Court has reviewed the filings and its March 16, 2018 memorandum opinion and order that granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. In doing so, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any of the grounds necessary to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's previous decisions. In addition, the Court concludes that the convening of a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 is not required. Nor is oral argument necessary.
5. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiffs: (1) motion for reconsideration (D.I. 55); (2) motion for hearing before a three-judge court (D.I. 56); and (3) request for oral argument (D.I. 57). An appropriate order will be entered
