Robinson v. McKee
Filing
26
ORDER denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAMONT D. ROBINSON,
Case No. 13-13145
Petitioner,
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara
v.
KENNETH McKEE,
Respondent.
/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
APRIL 10, 2014 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter came before the court on petitioner LaMont D. Robinson’s April 10, 2014 motion
for reconsideration of the court’s March 28, 2014 order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. No response was filed and no oral argument was heard.
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.
LR 7.1(h)(3).
Petitioner Robinson’s motion for reconsideration "merely present[s] the same issues ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication." Robinson has failed to
“demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties . . . have been misled.”
Accordingly, the court must deny his motion for reconsideration.
ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant LaMont D. Robinson’s April 10, 2014
motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: August 21, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record
on this date, August 21, 2014, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager
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?