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)

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
[phone]

3