Opinion
Case Number 2:13-cv-10360
02-03-2014
ANGELO WISE, Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent.
Honorable Paul D. Borman
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. 16]
Petitioner, Angelo Wise, a state prisoner, filed this case under 28 U.S.C. § 22541. On February 15, 2013, the Court denied Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing without prejudice. Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration. He state no basis whatsoever for his motion. Rather, he simply states that he wishes the Court to reconsider its order.
Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable 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. A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Because Petitioner has not shown any reason why the Court's prior order was erroneously entered, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
__________
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on February 3, 2014.
Deborah Tofil
Case Manager