Greiner v. Charter County of Macomb, Michigan et al

Filing 131

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 128 and 129 Third Set of Motions for Reconsideration and Prohibiting Plaintiff from Filing Additional Motions for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN GREINER, Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-13979 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. CHARTER COUNTY OF MACOMB, MICHIGAN, a/k/a MACOMB COUNTY, et al., Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S THIRD SET OF MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF ## 128, 129) AND PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM FILING ADDITIONAL MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION On September 11, 2017, this Court entered an Opinion and Order in which it granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Michigan Council 25 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and granted summary judgment in part to Defendant Charter County of Macomb. (See ECF #117, the “Opinion and Order.”) Plaintiff thereafter filed four motions for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order. (See ECF ## 118, 119, 121, 122). On October 6, 2017, the Court denied those four motions for reconsideration. (See ECF #124.) Plaintiff subsequently filed two additional motions for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order. (See ECF ## 125, 126). The Court denied those motions on October 18, 2017. (See ECF #127.) 1 On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed two more motions for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order. (See ECF ## 128, 129). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s most recent motions for reconsideration (ECF ## 128, 129) are DENIED because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled and/or that correcting any such defect, if one existed, would result in a different disposition of the summary judgment motions. See Local Rule 7.1(h). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is PROHIBITED from filing any additional motions for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order. While the Court appreciates that Plaintiff strongly disagrees with its ruling and respects his right to do so, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s many arguments in support of reconsideration – in the eight motions for reconsideration that Plaintiff has filed – and the Court concludes that there is no basis for the filing of any additional motions for reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 25, 2017 2 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on October 25, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764 3

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?