Opinion
CASE NUMBER: 13-20371
06-17-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DOREEN HENDRICKSON, Defendant.
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
ORDER DENYING DOREEN HENDRICKSON'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DOC. # 80
On May 30, 2014, the Court entered an Order denying Doreen Hendrickson's motion to dismiss indictment. On June 16, 2014, Hendrickson filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming the Court erred when it declined to grant her motion. The Court DENIES Hendrickson's motion.
In its discretion, the Court can grant such a motion if it is demonstrated that a palpable defect misled the Court in its ruling, correction of which would result in a different disposition. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3); See E.D. Mich. LCrR 12.1(a) (providing that criminal motions are governed by Local Rule 7.1).
"It is an exception to the norm for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration." Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010). "[A]bsent a significant error that changes the outcome of a ruling on a motion, the Court will not provide a party with an opportunity to relitigate issues already decided." Id. Palpable defects are those which are "obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain." Mich. Dep't of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
Hendrickson's motion presents no papable defect; rather, she presents the same arguments that the Sixth Circuit and this Court have already decided. The motion is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
__________
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record and Doreen Hendrickson by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 17, 2014.
Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk