From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henry v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 20, 2019
No. 18-13471 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2019)

Opinion

No. 18-13471

03-20-2019

DAVID HENRY, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration concerning the court's dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion must be denied.

First, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). The court dismissed the complaint on February 14, 2019. Plaintiff dated his motion for reconsideration on March 3, 2019-several days after the established time limit. His request is therefore untimely and must be denied.

Second, a motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the district court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. See 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). The court properly dismissed the complaint for the reasons stated in its dismissal order. Plaintiff fails to meet 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). See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).

Third, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks clarification as to whether the dismissal of the civil rights complaint is with or without prejudice, the court confirms that the dismissal is with prejudice. A dismissal for failure to state a claim is a judgment on the merits and is done with prejudice. See Pratt v. Ventas, Inc., 365 F.3d 514, 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (discussing dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (effect of involuntary dismissal). This case remains closed. No further pleadings should be filed in this case. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.

s/Robert H. Cleland

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 20, 2019 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, March 20, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(810) 292-6522 S:\Cleland\Cleland\HEK\Staff Attorney\18-13471.HENRY. deny.reconsideration.HEK.docx


Summaries of

Henry v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 20, 2019
No. 18-13471 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2019)
Case details for

Henry v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID HENRY, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 20, 2019

Citations

No. 18-13471 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2019)