Haney v. Rhode et al

Filing 121

ORDER denying 115 and 117 MOTIONS for Reconsideration - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID HANEY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-13227

v.

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

DR. ROBERT CROMPTON, et. al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [115] [117]
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July
16, 2019 order accepting and adopting the magistrate judge’s April 11, 2019 report and
recommendation and granting summary judgment to Defendant Dr. Robert Crompton.1
Pursuant to Rule 7.1(h) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, a party
may move for reconsideration of an order within fourteen days of the order's issuance.
For the motion to succeed, 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.” E.D. Mich. L. R. 7.1(h). A court
generally will not grant a motion for reconsideration that “merely present[s] the same
issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” Id.

1

 Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his motion to motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 117.)  This motion is granted.  
The Court will consider Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 115) as amended by Defendant’s motion to 
amend (ECF No. 117).   

1 

Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 7.1(h). The crux of
Plaintiff’s motion is that Defendant Crompton falsified or fabricated evidence relating to
Plaintiff’s medication and treatment. Plaintiff does not, however, set out a palpable defect
by which the Court has been misled, but instead merely re-hashes the arguments he
previously made in his response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and in his
objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R. See Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub.
Sch., 298 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (“A motion for reconsideration is not
properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old arguments or to advance positions that could
have been argued earlier but were not.”). The Court sees no reason to address these
arguments again. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: October 2, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on October 2, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager

2