Keshtgarpour v. Henry Ford Health System et al

Filing 26

ORDER Denying (1) Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Reconsideration and (2) Plaintiff's 25 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MANI KESHTGARPOUR,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-12917
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING (1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF #24) AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND/CORRECT (ECF #25)
In this action, Plaintiff Mani Keshtgarpour, M.D., sought an order compelling
Defendant Henry Ford Health System to issue him what Keshtgarpour called a
“Certificate of Completion” related to a medical residency program that
Keshtgarpour began in 2004. (See Compl., ECF #1 at Pg. ID 6.) Keshtgarpour also
sought “Two Hundred Million U.S. Dollars” in money damages. (Id.) Henry Ford
filed a motion to dismiss this action (see ECF ## 8, 10), the assigned Magistrate
Judge issued a report and recommendation suggesting that the Court grant that
motion (the “R&R”) (see ECF #17), and, on September 11, 2018, the Court granted
Henry Ford’s motion over Keshtgarpour’s objections to the R&R. (See ECF #22.)
On September 19, 2019, Keshtgarpour filed two documents with the Court.
(See ECF ## 24, 25.) Both appear to ask the Court to reconsider its September 11,
1

2018, ruling granting Henry Ford’s motion and dismissing Keshtgarpour’s
Complaint. (See id.) Accordingly, the Court will construe both filings as motions to
reconsider the Court’s September 11, 2018, order.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). That rule
provides:
Generally, and without restricting the Court's discretion,
the Court will not grant motions for rehearing or
reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a
palpable defect by which the Court and the parties and
other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been
misled but also show that correcting the defect will result
in a different disposition of the case.
E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
The Court has reviewed Keshtgarpour’s motions and concludes that he has
not met this standard. Keshtgarpour has failed to persuade the Court that its
September 11, 2018, order contains palpable defects, and Keshtgarpour has not
shown that correction of any of the alleged defects would result in a different
disposition of Henry Ford’s motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, Keshtgarpour’s

motions (ECF ## 24, 25) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2018

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on October 5, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3