DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
REUBEN DOWLING,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2000-CV-0049
v.
5
5
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
5
VIRGIN ISLANDS GOVERNMENT,
5
and ALMORE FREDERICKS,
5
5
Defendants.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Angela Tyson-Floyd, Esq., AUSA
Richard Schrader, Jr., Esq., AAG
 
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order
Denying Motion For Sanctions (Docket No. 378).  Defendants Virgin Islands Government
and Almore Fredericks filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply
thereto.
Said Defendants argue that the motion is both untimely and without merit.  The
Court agrees on both counts.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3 provides:
Case: 1:00-cv-00049-RLF-GWC   Document #: 383   Filed: 10/06/08   Page 1 of 3
Dowling v. United States Government 
2000-CV-0049
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
Page 2
A party may file a motion asking the Court to reconsider its order or
decision. Such motion shall be filed within ten (10) days after the entry of the
order or decision unless the time is extended by the Court. Extensions will
only be granted for good cause shown. 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 (as amended January 25, 2008).  The order at issue (Docket No. 370) was entered
on July 29, 2008.  Plaintiff’s motion was filed on August 18, 2008.  The date by which said
motion for reconsideration should have been filed was August 12, 2008.  Clearly, the said
motion was filed out of time.  In addition, no extension was  sought from nor granted by
the Court.
Moreover, the Court also finds that the said motion is not grounded in any of the
bases for reconsideration.  Plaintiff has not demonstrated a manifest error of law or fact. 
Further, Plaintiff has introduced no new evidence in support of reconsideration.   
Additionally, Plaintiff has not even alleged an intervening change in law.   Therefore,
reconsideration is not warranted on any of those bases.
Plaintiff appears merely to disagree with the Court’s ruling.  However, “clear error
or manifest injustice does not exist when a litigant merely disagrees with the court.”  Bostic
v. AT & T of the Virgin Islands, 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 735 (D.V.I. 2004) (citation omitted).  See
Case: 1:00-cv-00049-RLF-GWC   Document #: 383   Filed: 10/06/08   Page 2 of 3
Dowling v. United States Government 
2000-CV-0049
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
Page 3
also Central Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Marello, No. Civ. A. 00-3344, 2001 WL 41129 at *2 (E.D. Pa.
January 17, 2001) (where the court states, “Dissatisfaction with the Court's ruling is not a
proper basis for reconsideration” (citing Burger King Corp. v. New England Hood and Duct
Cleaning Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2000)).
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
Order Denying Motion For Sanctions (Docket No. 378) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: October 6, 2008
                                 /s/                                  
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:00-cv-00049-RLF-GWC   Document #: 383   Filed: 10/06/08   Page 3 of 3