Monroe v. Consumers Energy et al

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 40]. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVANGELENE MONROE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 16-10079

CONSUMERS ENERGY and
REBECCA KOSNIK,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 40)
I.
This is an employment case. Plaintiff Evangelene Monroe (Monroe), proceeding
pro se, sued defendants Consumers Energy and Rebecca Kosnik claiming she was
discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101–12213 stemming from a decision to have her undergo an independent
medical examination (IME) following instances of aberrant behavior and work
performance issues. Monroe claimed that Consumers Energy improperly “regarded”
her as disabled in requiring the IME.
Consumers Energy filed a motion for motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 23).
Monroe filed a motion to amend her complaint. (Doc. 29). The Court granted
Consumers Energy’s motion and denied Monroe’s motion. (Doc. 37). Before the Court
is Monroe’s motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, the motion is

DENIED.1 For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED. This case is
DISMISSED.
II.
E.D. Mich LR 7.1(h)(3) provides in relevant part:
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not
grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the
same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by implication.
The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
court and the parties have been misled but also show that correcting the
defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
Restating arguments does not establish a defect or that the Court was misled. See
Intercontinental Electronics, S.p.A. v. Roosen, 210 F. App’x 491, **3 (6th Cir. 2006).
III.
Monroe has not satisfied the high standard for reconsideration. As noted in
Consumers Energy’s response (Doc. 43) which is incorporated here by reference,
Monroe repeats her prior arguments which the Court rejected in granting Consumers
Energy’s motion for summary judgment or advances arguments that are not relevant
and

1

Also before the Court is Monroe’s motion to “stay” the Court’s order pending
resolution of the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 39). In light of this order, the motion
to stay is MOOT.
2

outside the issues presented in the summary judgment motion. Reconsideration is not
warranted.
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:
Detroit, Michigan

3