holds that Judge Johnson’s order is indeed inconsistent with the motion to strike and that the order therefore impliedly resolved the motion to strike. 6 . Although failure to adhere to the law of the case doctrine may in some cases constitute abuse of discretion, adherence to the doctrine is not mandatory. See Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) (Holmes, J.) (noting that the law of the case doctrine "merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power”). 7 . See, e.g., United. States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir.1973) (interlocutory orders may be reconsidered by a district court when doing so is “consonant with justice"); M.K. v. Tenet, 196 F.Supp.2d 8, 12 (D.D.C.2001) (<HOLDING>); A & H Sportswear Co., Inc. v. Victoria's
holding that reconsideration of an interlocutory decision  is available under the standard as justice requires  holding that motions requesting reconsideration of interlocutory orders do not toll the time for seeking review under rule 21 ala r app p holding that the standard of review for the denial of a motion for reconsideration is governed by the law of the regional circuit holding that because the standard of review for factual determinations on direct appeal is higher than the standard applied during an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction the interlocutory appeal normally will not establish law of the case on factual matters holding same as to the filing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal