Lynch v. Worthy et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY LYNCH-BEY,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-10099
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
KYM WORTHY, DAVID ALLEN, and
MARK T. SLAVENS,
Defendants.
______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Anthony Lynch-Bey’s Motion for
Reconsideration concerning the Court’s dismissal of his pro se Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed the Complaint based upon Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the RookerFeldman doctrine, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Ct. of
App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
and based upon absolute immunity.
Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied. A request for reconsideration which presents issues
already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted.
See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc.,
P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Plaintiff raises such issues in his Motion. The
Court properly dismissed the Complaint for the reasons stated in its dismissal decision. Plaintiff
fails to meet his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his

burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. This
case is closed. No further pleadings should be filed in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 23, 2017

2