From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tammera v. Grossman

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Jun 18, 2010
Civ. No. 10-569 (DRD) (D.N.J. Jun. 18, 2010)

Opinion

Civ. No. 10-569 (DRD).

June 18, 2010


ORDER


The pro se Plaintiff, Frank Tammera, Sr., having requesting via letter filed on May 20, 2010, that the Court reconsider its Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2010, which dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on an initial 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) review; and the Court having construed Mr. Tammera's letter as asserting a motion for reconsideration; and the Court having considered Mr. Tammera's submissions; and for the reasons set forth in the opinion of even date,

IT IS on this 18th day of June, 2010, hereby ORDERED that Mr. Tammera's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.


Summaries of

Tammera v. Grossman

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Jun 18, 2010
Civ. No. 10-569 (DRD) (D.N.J. Jun. 18, 2010)
Case details for

Tammera v. Grossman

Case Details

Full title:FRANK TAMMERA, SR., Plaintiff, v. YITZ GROSSMAN, WERNER HAASE, and DAVID…

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Jun 18, 2010

Citations

Civ. No. 10-569 (DRD) (D.N.J. Jun. 18, 2010)

Citing Cases

Finnemen v. Tucker

As Plaintiff has on previous occasions, he is impermissibly asking this Court to sit as an appellate court…

Finnemen v. McCrink

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars district court review of state court decisions. See Tammera v. Grossman, No.…