Opinion
Case No. 15-14154
07-10-2017
VALERIE BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. XDM, Inc., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. 22)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Valerie Bradley's February 27, 2017 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 22) of the Court's February 3, 2017 Order (Dkt. 20) granting Defendant XDM's motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 16).
For the reasons set forth below, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 22) is DENIED.
I. ANALYSIS
The Court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the movant satisfactorily shows that: (1) a palpable defect misled the parties and the Court; and (2) correcting the defect would result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A defect is palpable if it is "obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain." Olson v. Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The Court will not grant a motion for reconsideration "that merely present[s] the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication." Id.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration raises no new issues or argument—it merely reiterates the arguments made in Plaintiff's prior briefs, and argues that the Court was incorrect in failing to accept Plaintiff's view of the case. The Court has already carefully explained its reasons for concluding that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment. (Dkt. 20). Because Plaintiff identifies no palpable defect in the Court's order, her motion for reconsideration is not well taken and must be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 36) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED. Dated: July 10, 2017
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of record were served on July 10, 2017.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager