Hankins v. Woodard et al

Filing 31

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Reconsideration and 30 Petition to Amend Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RUSSELL HANKINS #160532, Plaintiff, Case No. 16-cv-13845 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. JOHN WOODARD, and MARK TENNISWOOD, Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #29) AND PETITION TO AMEND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #30) In this action, Plaintiff Russell Hankins, an inmate in the Michigan Department of Corrections, asserted claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments against Defendants John Woodard and Mark Tenniswood, two MDOC employees. On February 27, 2017, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on Hankin’s claims. (See ECF #19.) The assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she suggested that the Court grant the motion (the “R&R”). (See ECF #25.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court deny Hankins’ motion for preliminary injunction. (See id.) Hankins filed objections to the R&R. (See ECF #26.) On September 25, 2017, the Court entered an order in which it (1) overruled Hankins’ objections to the R&R, (2) granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and (3) denied Hankins’ motion for preliminary injunction (the “Order”). 1 (See ECF #27.) On that day, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. (See ECF #28.) On October 18, 2017, Hankins filed a motion for reconsideration directed at the Order and judgment in favor of the Defendants. (See ECF #29.) Hankins thereafter filed a petition to amend his motion for reconsideration and requested that the Court grant reconsideration of the Order. (See ECF #30.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hankins’ motion for reconsideration and petition to amend his motion for reconsideration (ECF ## 29, 30) are DENIED because Hankins 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. See Local Rule 7.1(h). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: November 15, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on November 15, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764 2

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?