Smith v. Spencer

Filing 14

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARTIN SMITH,
Case Number: 5:17-cv-11090
HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

Plaintiff,
v.
THERESA SPENCER,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Martin Smith filed a pro se complaint challenging the conduct of
defendant Theresa Spencer, Lapeer County Circuit Court clerk, related to her handling of
his legal filings. The Court summarily dismissed the complaint, finding that Spencer’s
actions fell within the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. Now before the Court is
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(h), a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate
(i) a “palpable defect” by which the court and the parties have been “misled,” and (ii) that
“correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R.
7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is an error that is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest
or plain.” United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
Plaintiff argues that Spencer was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.
Petitioner’s motion offers nothing more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision

and does not expose a palpable defect. Disagreement with a decision fails to allege
sufficient grounds upon which to grant reconsideration. L.R. 7.1(h)(3); see also Meekison
v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
The Court will deny the motion.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.
12).
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: February 12, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
of record on this date, February 12, 2018, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

2