Donaldson v. AuSable Township

Filing 39

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 38 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (Sian, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
MARK P. DONALDSON,
Case No. 16-cv-11555
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

Plaintiff,
v.
AUSABLE TOWNSHIP, et al
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion, ECF No. 36, requesting an extension of the
page limit for his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No.
35. Plaintiff requested that the page limit be extended from 25 to 50 pages because the
Magistrate Judge recommended that some of Plaintiff’s motions be denied as moot and thus did
not substantively analyze those motions. On August 30, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s
motion for a page extension. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration of
that denial.1 ECF No. 38.
Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. A motion for reconsideration will be granted if the
moving party shows: “(1) a palpable defect, (2) the defect misled the court and the parties, and
(3) that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” Michigan Dept. of
Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733-34 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (quoting E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(g)(3)). A “palpable defect” is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Id. at 734
(citing Marketing Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 262, 278 (E.D. Mich.

1

Plaintiff’s motion is styled a motion for “immediate reconsideration.” Simply requesting immediate consideration
does not necessitate the Court to respond instantly. This order is being promptly issued as a courtesy to Plaintiff,
considering the time frame within which he must file objections.

1997). Plaintiff has not identified any palpable defects in the Court’s prior order. Plaintiff need
not object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings on the motions denied as moot because the
Magistrate Judge did not make findings regarding those motions. The right to further appeal will
be waived only as to objections which could have been made concerning the Magistrate Judge’s
substantive analysis, but which were not made. Because Plaintiff will be able to adequately raise
his objections in twenty-five pages, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied. If
Plaintiff submits objections in excess of twenty-five pages, the extra pages will not be
considered.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 38, of
this Court’s denial of an extension of the page limit for his objections to the report and
recommendation is DENIED.

Dated: September 2, 2016

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

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 on September 2, 2016.
s/Michael A. Sian
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager

-2-