Opinion
Case No. 04-73822
09-25-2012
Honorable Denise Page Hood
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Now before the Court is Plaintiff's third motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff now requests the Court to reconsider its previous two orders denying Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration. As stated in its prior orders denying Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration, "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." E.D. Mich. L. R. 7.1(h)(3). 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 plain." 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).
As before, the Plaintiff fails to meet the standard for reconsideration. Plaintiff has not presented any new issues not already ruled on by this Court or any palpable defect that misled the Court or the parties. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any defect that, if cured, would change the Court's original disposition. The Court finds the Plaintiff's post judgment motions duplicative. There is no authority giving Plaintiff leave to file more than one motion for reconsideration. Further motions raising the same issues will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 148, filed October 6, 2011] is DENIED.
____________________
DENISE PAGE HOOD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, Tuesday, September 25, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
LaShawn Saulsberry
Case Manager