From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brockiede v. State

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 13, 2011
Case No. 09-14626 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 09-14626

12-13-2011

ROLAND CHARLES BROCKIEDE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant.


Honorable Denise Page Hood


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVITS

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's, Roland Charles Brockiede, Affidavits [Docket Nos. 7-11]. On January 12, 2010, the Court issued a Notice remanding this action back to state court. Plaintiff then filed a series of five affidavits. The Court will consider each as a separate motion for reconsideration.

The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). No response or oral argument is allowed unless the Court orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7(h)(2). Pursuant to Rule 7.1(h)(3) "the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication." A motion for reconsideration is only proper if the movant shows that the court and the parties were misled by a "palpable defect." E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A "palpable defect" is a "defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plan." Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F.Supp.2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The movant must also demonstrate that the disposition of the case would be different if the palpable defect were cured. E. D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).

In a series of Affidavits totaling over 600 pages, Plaintiff challenges the Court's removal of this case and alleged fraud in state court. Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard for reconsideration. The Court will not consider the re-hashing of arguments already considered or new arguments that could have been advanced earlier. Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated a "palpable defect" that if cured would change the Court's original disposition.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), the Court finds that Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration are DENIED and this action remains remanded to state court.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Affidavits [Docket Nos. 7-11] are DENIED.

________________

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon Roland Brockriede, 4646 Hollenbeck Road, Columbiaville, MI 48421 and counsel of record on December 13, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

LaShawn R. Saulsberry

Case Manager


Summaries of

Brockiede v. State

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dec 13, 2011
Case No. 09-14626 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2011)
Case details for

Brockiede v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROLAND CHARLES BROCKIEDE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 13, 2011

Citations

Case No. 09-14626 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2011)