Pearson v. Palmer

Filing 49

ORDER denying 46 MOTION for Reconsideration re 40 Memorandum Opinion & Order, 41 Judgment filed by Samuel Pearson. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMUEL PEARSON,
Petitioner,
Case Number 08-14422
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
RAYMOND BOOKER,
Respondent.
___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
August 11, 2011 opinion and order dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus.
A motion for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1) when the
moving party shows (1) a “palpable defect,” (2) that misled the court and the parties, and (3) that
correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). A
“palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Mich. Dep’t
of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citations omitted). The
petitioner has not presented any evidence of a palpable defect that misled the Court. Instead, the
petitioner’s motion merely revisits issues already decided by the Court. Therefore, the Court will
deny the motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration [dkt. #46] is
DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: September 2, 2011

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, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-