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)

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
[phone]

2