NOT FOR PUBLICATION
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN
STEPHEN McCAULEY, 
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS, SEAN GEORGES in his
individual and official
capacities, DR. LAVERNE
RAGSTER, in her individual and
official capacities, and JON
and/or JANE DOES I through X,
Defendants.
______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 2005-188
     
ATTORNEYS:
Darren J. Baptiste, Esq.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the plaintiff, 
Samuel H. Hall, Esq.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the defendants. 
ORDER
GÓMEZ, C.J.
Before the Court is the motion of Stephen McCauley
(“McCauley”) for reconsideration of this Court’s April 24, 2009,
Order denying his petition for a temporary restraining order
enjoining the University of the Virgin Islands, Sean Georges, in
his individual and official capacities, Dr. Laverne Ragster, in
her individual and official capacities, and Jon and/or Jane Does
Case: 3:05-cv-00188-CVG-GWB   Document #: 63   Filed: 04/30/09   Page 1 of 3
McCauley v Univ. of the V.I., et al.
Civil No. 2005-188
Order
Page 2
I through X (collectively, the “Defendants”) from conducting any
proceedings based on the University’s Code of Student Conduct, or
from reconvening any proceedings based thereon, during the
pendency of the above captioned matter.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3 (“Local Rule 7.3")
provides:
A party may file a motion asking the court to
reconsider its order or decision. . . .  A motion to
reconsider shall be based on:
1. Intervening change in controlling law;
2. Availability of new evidence, or;
3. The need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice
LRCi 7.3 (2008).  The purpose of a motion for reconsideration “is
to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906,
909 (3d Cir. 1985).  Such motions are not substitutes for
appeals, and are not to be used as “a vehicle for registering 
disagreement with the court’s initial decision, for rearguing
matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments
that could have been raised before but were not.” Bostic v. AT&T
of the V.I., 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). 
Here, McCauley argues that reconsideration is appropriate in
order to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. 
However, McCauley has failed to point to any error in the April
Case: 3:05-cv-00188-CVG-GWB   Document #: 63   Filed: 04/30/09   Page 2 of 3
McCauley v Univ. of the V.I., et al.
Civil No. 2005-188
Order
Page 3
24, 2009, Order.  McCauley has also failed to set forth any facts
that would support the inference of manifest injustice.  Rather,
McCauley merely restates the arguments set forth in his initial
petition for a temporary restraining order.  Mere disagreement
with the Court’s conclusions, however, is not a valid basis for a
motion for reconsideration. 
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
   
  S\                      
       CURTIS V. GÓMEZ         
 
 
    Chief Judge
Case: 3:05-cv-00188-CVG-GWB   Document #: 63   Filed: 04/30/09   Page 3 of 3