Pouncy v. Palmer

Filing 122

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 121 Motion for Clarification. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OMAR RASHAD POUNCY, Petitioner, Case No. 13-cv-14695 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. CARMEN D. PALMER, Respondent. _________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF #121) On December 21, 2016, this Court entered an Order denying Petitioner Omar Rashad Pouncy’s (“Pouncy”) motion to reinstate bond (the “Denial Order”). (See ECF #120.) On January 2, 2017, Pouncy filed a motion to clarify the Denial Order, or, in the alternative, for rehearing or reconsideration of that order (the “Motion to Clarify”). (See ECF #121.) The Court does not believe that clarification of the Denial Order is necessary or appropriate. Moreover, to the extent Pouncy seeks rehearing or reconsideration of the Denial Order, he has failed to satisfy the Court’s requirements that he “demonstrate a palpable defect by which the [C]ourt and the parties … have been 1 misled [and] show that correcting the defect [would] result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Clarify (ECF #121) is DENIED. Dated: January 3, 2017 s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on January 3, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (313) 234-5113 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?