Fraser v. Livingston, County of et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying 44 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DENNIS EDWARD FRASER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case Number: 09-14906
Honorable Denise Page Hood

LIVINGSTON COUNTY,
COUNTY SHERIFF ROBERT BEZOTTE,
TARA BLACK,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 24,

filed April 4, 2011]. This Court issued an Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and
Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on March 25, 2011 [Docket No. 41].
II.

ANALYSIS
Pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3) “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.” A motion for reconsideration is only proper if the movant shows that
the court and the parties were misled by a “palpable defect.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). A
“palpable defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Olson v.
The Home Depot, 321 F.Supp.2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The movant must also
demonstrate that the disposition of the case would be different if the palpable defect were cured.
E. D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3).

09-14906 Fraser v. Livingston County, et al
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiffs argue that the Court failed to address several issues that Plaintiff raised in his
response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff contends that the Court relied
on Exhibit A-A, which does not exist and that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Joyce V. Fraser died intestate. The Court relied on Exhibit A-A, which is in fact Exhibit
A that is attached to the Defendants’ Answer [Docket No. 11, filed February 4, 2010]. Plaintiff
next argues that his July 2, 2008 arrest was unlawful. In addition, Plaintiff reasons that the
Livingston County prosecutor maliciously prosecuted and did not have a valid warrant to have
him extradited back to Livingston County Jail. He also argues that Defendant Tara Black
maliciously prosecuted him. Plaintiff further contends that the Writ of Garnishment was
unlawful.
Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard for reconsideration. He has not presented any
new issues that this Court has not already considered or a palpable defect that misled the Court
or the parties. Plaintiff is simply rehashing issues that the Court has already considered and ruled
on. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that there is any defect that, if cured, would
change the Court’s disposition. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g)(3), Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration must be DENIED.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 44, filed

April 6, 2011] is DENIED.
Dated: November 30, 2011

s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

09-14906 Fraser v. Livingston County, et al
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Dennis Edward
Fraser, 21 Poppy Street, Homosassa, FL 34446 and the attorneys of record on this date,
Wednesday, November 30, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/LaShawn Saulsbery
Case Manager, [phone]

3