Opinion
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-14422
01-14-2015
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION/REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING HIS MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's objection to the Court's dismissal of his pro se Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court construes as a request for reconsideration, as well as his motion for discovery to include additional defendants in this action.
Plaintiff's request for reconsideration and his motion for discovery must be denied. A motion or request for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Plaintiff raises such issues in his objection to the Court's ruling. The Court properly dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as explained in the dismissal order. Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for reconsideration. Given this determination, the Court also DENIES Plaintiff's motion for discovery. The addition of new defendants would not change the Court's decision to summarily dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This case is closed.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: January 14, 2015 The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record and Kevin Beverly by electronic means or U.S. Mail on January 14, 2015. s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk