MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.

The court has received a document entitled "Quae Corum Nobis Resident." This is a motion for reconsideration or an application to file another amended complaint.

The standards applicable to a motion for reconsideration are well established. "[R]econsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Lesch v. United States, 372 F.App'x 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Shrader v. CSX Trasp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). The plaintiff has failed to point to any facts or controlling law that the court overlooked. The plaintiff has failed to state a copyright claim because he lacks a copyright registration. The plaintiff failed to allege a viable trademark claim because he failed to establish that the defendants did not have a right to describe his music as it did. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to explain how the Court erred in denying any dilution claim.

With respect to the application to file yet another amended complaint, the plaintiff has not offered such an amended complaint and has failed to explain how any amended complaint could cure the deficiencies the Court noted in the last complaint.

The motion is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case. The Clerk is also directed to close all pending motions and to close this case.

SO ORDERED.