Mattox v. Edelman et al
ORDER denying 33 Motion for Rehearing. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 12-cv-13762
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
ADAM D. EDELMAN and ADRIANNE
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING
On July 30, 2013, the Court issued an order adopting Magistrate Judge Komives’s report
and recommendation and granting Defendant Neff’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 27. On August
15, 2013, Plaintiff timely filed a motion for rehearing. ECF No. 33. Eastern District of Michigan
Local Rule 7.1(h) permits any party to move for rehearing or reconsideration of the Court’s
conclusions within fourteen days of the entry of the order, plus three days for mailing. E.D.
Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). The Court does not permit a responsive pleading or hold hearings on
motions for rehearing. 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
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 rehearing or 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
Here, Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing presents nothing new. Plaintiff’s allegation that
Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights has been previously considered and rejected. Plaintiff argues that the Court
“overlooked or misapprehended the facts” in this case, but does not present any additional
factual information. Pl.’s Mot. for Reh’g 1. Instead, he simply disagrees with the outcome of the
previous order and reasserts facts that are contained in his complaint. Plaintiff admits that he
received medical treatment on the night at issue, but argues that the treatment was inadequate.
Pl.’s Mot. 2. Plaintiff has not alleged any new facts that plausibly suggest that he had a serious
medical need on the night of August 14 that Defendant Neff was deliberately indifferent to.
Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing restates his argument that has already been provided to
and considered by the Court. 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.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for rehearing (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: October 4, 2013
PROOF 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, and upon Todd Mattox #186106, Lakeland Correctional
Facility, 141 First Street, Coldwater, MI 49036 by first class U.S. mail
on October 4, 2013.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?