Opinion
Case No. 11-10271
08-29-2011
HON.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [#22]
On August 16, 2011, this court entered an order granting the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. See Dkt. No. 14. The court's August 16, 2011 order held that plaintiff's complaint "does not contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face." Id. at 14 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend his complaint and stay foreclosure proceedings. The court construes plaintiff's present motion as a motion for reconsideration of this court's August 16, 2011 order under E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3).
Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan provides:
[M]otions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall not be granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a palpableE.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which this court has been misled, the correction of which will result in a different disposition of this case. Plaintiff does not attach a copy of a proposed amended complaint, nor identify specifically how he will rectify the pleading deficiencies discussed in this court's August 16, 2011 order.
defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on August 29, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also to Edward Christopher Galka at 8583 Frederick Dr., Washington Township, MI 48094 .
Josephine Chaffee
Deputy Clerk