Lytal et al v. Sampson et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 78 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
PHILIP BERRYMAN,
Plaintiff,
Case Number 10-12169
Honorable Thomas Ludington

v.
BARBARA SAMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On December 21, 2011, the Court issued an opinion and order granting the Parole Board
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, granting the MDOC Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
granting Defendant Berrios’s motion for summary judgment, sua sponte dismissing Defendants
Ford and Holden, dismissing Plaintiff Philip Berryman’s federal claims with prejudice, and
declining jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. ECF No. 76. On January 13, 2012, Plaintiff
filed a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 78. Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)
permits any party to move for reconsideration of the Court’s conclusions within fourteen days of the
entry of the order. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). The Court does not permit a responsive pleading or
hold hearings on motions for reconsideration. Id. 7.1(h)(2).
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, 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. The movant must
not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other
persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that
correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
Id. “A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Scozzari
v. City of Clare, 723 F. Supp. 2d 974, 981-82 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (citation and quotation marks

omitted).

Furthermore, failure to address an issue constitutes a waiver or abandonment of the

argument. Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998).
Motions for reconsideration “are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration.” Id.; Scottsdale
Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 553 (6th Cir. 2008) (“We have found issues to be waived when
they are raised for the first time in motions for reconsideration.”).
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration restates arguments that have already been provided to
and considered by the Court and states his disagreement with the Court’s March 31, 2011 opinion
and order. The motion does not, however, “demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and
the parties [were] misled” and consequently must be denied. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 78) is DENIED.
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: May 3, 2012
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each
attorney of record herein by electronic means and upon Philip Berryman, #107202
at Lakeland Correctional Facility, 141 First Street, Coldwater, MI 49036 by first
class U.S. mail on May 3, 2012.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-2-