Greiner v. Charter County of Macomb, Michigan et al

Filing 154

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's 153 Motion to Correct the Record. 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 WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD (ECF #153)

This Court previously entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants and
against Plaintiff. Plaintiff has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, and that appeal is now pending in the appellate court. On June 13,
2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to correct the record in this Court. (See Mot., ECF
#153.)
Although titled “Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct the Record in the District
Court,” Plaintiff’s filing consists solely of an affidavit from him. (See Aff. of John
Greiner, ECF #153 at Pg. ID 9852-53.) In that affidavit, Plaintiff asserts that certain
unidentified statements he made in depositions and during hearings are not in the

1

transcripts of those proceedings, and he cites without analysis Rule 10 of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure. (See id. at ¶¶ 1-5, Pg. ID 9852-53.) Nowhere in
Plaintiff’s filing does he make any request for relief.
Without knowing more, the Court cannot reasonably entertain the motion. In
order to properly consider the motion, the Court must be informed of the following:
(1) each and every specific statement – set forth verbatim as it was allegedly made
– by Plaintiff that was allegedly omitted from the transcripts; (2) at what point in the
transcripts the statements should appear; (3) any evidence in Plaintiff’s possession
that supports his assertion that the statements were omitted; and (4) the specific relief
that Plaintiff seeks. In addition, Plaintiff must explain how the relief he seeks is
available and properly granted under the governing rule(s). Because Plaintiff has
not included this information in his motion, the Court will deny it without prejudice.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to correct the record is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may re-file the motion in compliance with the requirements
set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 18, 2018

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on June 18, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3