Whorton v. McKee

Filing 32

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RODRIGUEZ WHORTON,
Case No. 10-13902
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

Petitioner,
v.
PAUL KLEE,
Respondent.
_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration [dkt 31]. Pursuant to
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(2), a response to Petitioner’s motion is not permitted. As such, the Court finds
that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in Petitioner’s motion and brief such that the
decision process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich.
L.R. 7.1(h)(2), and 7.1(f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion be resolved on the brief submitted.
For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.
II. BACKGROUND
Petitioner’s motion challenges the Court’s September 20, 2013, Order adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [dkt 30]. The Magistrate Judge found—after reconsidering his
previous Report and Recommendation [dkt 23] in light of Petitioner’s objections [dkt 26]—that this Court
should nonetheless deny Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus and certificate of appealability.
The Court determined the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning to be sound and adopted the Report and
Recommendation.

III. LEGAL STANDARD
Local Rule 7.1(h) governs motions for reconsideration, stating that a “motion for rehearing or
reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order.” E.D. Mich. L.R.
7.1(h)(1). “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.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
The same subsection further states, “[t]he movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which
the court and the parties . . . have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a
different disposition of the case.” Id.

A defect is palpable when it is “obvious, clear, unmistakable,

manifest, or plain.” Chrysler Realty Co., LLC v. Design Forum Architects, Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 609, 618
(E.D. Mich. 2008).
IV. ANALYSIS
Petitioner’s motion fails to state a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled. Rather,
Petitioner’s motion presents issues that the Court has already ruled upon. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
Further, the motion indicates only Petitioner’s disagreement with the Court’s ruling. Such disagreement
is not a proper premise on which to base a motion for reconsideration. See, e.g., Simmons v. Caruso, No.
08-cv-14546, 2009 WL 1506851, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2009); Cowan v. Stovall, No. 2:06-CV13846, 2008 WL 4998267, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2008).
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s
Motion for Reconsideration [dkt 31] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 3, 2014
s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE