binding precedent. 1 . In its August 24, 2016 order denying the motion for reconsideration, the District Court also addressed Whitenight’s motion to join the claims in this lawsuit with those he has filed against the county jail and the state prison where he was held after he was arrested. The District Court denied the motion as moot because it was filed after the amended complaint was dismissed as untimely, and further noted that “[e]ven if [Whitenight] had brought all of his claims in one civil action initially, the Court would have still dismissed the claims against the arresting officers as untimely filed." We agree with the District Court’s analysis, and conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Thompson v, Boggs, 33 F.3d 847, 858 (7th Cir. 1994)
holding under third circuit law that the denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding under third circuit law that denial of rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that denial of discovery in habeas proceedings is reviewed for abuse of discretion