Bishop v. Wigod

Filing 9

OPINION and ORDER denying 6 Motion for Reconsideration re 4 Order Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Paul D Borman. (DGoo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TERRELL ALBERT BISHOP, Plaintiff, v. TARE ANDREW WIGOD, Defendant, ___________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On March 1, 2010, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court also certified that any appeal undertaken by Plaintiff would not be in good faith. See Bishop v. Wigod, No. 10-CV-10677, 2010 WL 743031 (E.D. Mich. March 1, 2010). Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. In order for a court to grant a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show (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. Sigma Financial Corp. v. American Intern. Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 200 F. Supp. 2d 710, 715 (E.D. Mich. 2002). A `palpable defect' is a defect which is considered "obvious, clear, Civil No: 10-CV-10677 PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

unmistakable, manifest, or plain." Id. As a general rule, a court will not grant a motion for rehearing

1

or reconsideration that merely presents the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Id. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied because he is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court dismissed Plaintiff's civil rights complaint. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 549, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [Court Docket Entry # 6] is DENIED.

s/Paul D. Borman PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: May 20, 2010 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on May 20, 2010. s/Denise Goodine Case Manager

2