Bradley v. XDM, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

VALERIE BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-14154
Hon. Terrence G. Berg

v.
XDM, Inc.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. 22)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Valerie Bradley’s
February 27, 2017 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 22) of the
Court’s February 3, 2017 Order (Dkt. 20) granting Defendant
XDM’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 16).
For the reasons set forth below, it is ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 22) is DENIED.
I.

ANALYSIS
The Court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the

movant satisfactorily shows that: (1) a palpable defect misled the
parties and the Court; and (2) correcting the defect would result in
a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A
defect is palpable if it is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or
plain.” Olson v. Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich.

2004). The Court 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.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration raises no new issues or
argument—it merely reiterates the arguments made in Plaintiff’s
prior briefs, and argues that the Court was incorrect in failing to
accept Plaintiff’s view of the case. The Court has already carefully
explained its reasons for concluding that Defendant was entitled to
summary judgment. (Dkt. 20). Because Plaintiff identifies no
palpable defect in the Court’s order, her motion for reconsideration
is not well taken and must be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (Dkt. 36) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 10, 2017

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed, and
the parties and/or counsel of record were served on July 10,
2017.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

2