Lee v. Henry Ford Community College et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 11 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT E. LEE,
Plaintiff,
Case Number 11-10179
Honorable David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

v.

HENRY FORD COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
and VANESSA TIMMONS,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
May 31, 2011 opinion and order overruling plaintiff’s objections to Report and Recommendation,
adopting the Report and Recommendation, and dismissing the case. The plaintiff now argues that
his First Amendment rights were violated and that he was discriminated against in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff also argues that he is “entitled to . . . relief [because]
I have been conspiracy against me to do harm stop my education and stop me from having proper
medical care by conspiracy against me to do harm, lie on me, and put me in a mental institution.”
Mot. at 9.
Motions 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. In fact, the
plaintiff’s motion does not address whether the plaintiff’s original complaint contained sufficient
allegations to provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s motion is dedicated to
identifying new claims that were not included in the complaint. Because the plaintiff has failed to
identify a palpable defect that misled the Court, the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be
denied. Additionally, the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint will be denied as moot.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [dkt. #11] is
DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint [dkt. #11] is
DENIED as moot.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: June 23, 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 June 23, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-