Williams v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER re 4 Docket Annotation Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LYLE A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-15525
HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

v.
THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant.
__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the
United States Courthouse, in the City of Port Huron, State of
Michigan, on the 15th day of February, 2012.
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s filing entered on the Court’s docket on
December 20, 2011, entitled “Illegal Foreclosure, Fraud, False Claim, Extortion Conspiracy Forgery
Mail Fraud Theft by Deception Breach of Contract” (Docket #4). The Court had denied Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, abstained from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s cause of
action due to pending state court proceedings, and closed the case only a day earlier. As there is no
pending action before the Court in regards to Plaintiff’s cause of action, the Court shall treat the
December 20, 2011, filing as a motion for reconsideration.

II. ANALYSIS
In order to obtain reconsideration of a particular matter, the party bringing the motion for
reconsideration must: (1) file the motion for reconsideration within 10 days of the Court’s prior
ruling; (2) demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled, and
(3) demonstrate that “correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D.

Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1) and (3). See also Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of Washtenaw,
358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir. 2004); Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v Dow Chemical Co., 44 F.Supp.2d 865,
866 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Kirkpatrick v. General Electric, 969 F.Supp. 457, 459 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
In this case, Plaintiff’s motion was timely filed, however, the filing made by Plaintiff is a
nearly verbatim recitation of pages 13-33 of his filing at Docket #1 of this case. There is no
additional argument or authority, nor is there any specific request for relief in the present filing.
Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no palpable defect by which the Court has been misled,
nor is there any defect which could be corrected such that it would result in a different disposition
of hte case.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s filing/motion for reconsideration
(Docket #4) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 15, 2012
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record
by electronic or U.S. mail on February 15, 2012.
S/Marie E. Verlinde
Case Manager
[phone]

2