United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DAVID M. LAWSON, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 3, 2015 opinion and order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. The Court has reviewed the defendant’s motion and finds that he has failed to demonstrate any palpable defect by which the Court and the parties were misled. The Court therefore will deny the motion.
Motions for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1) when the moving party shows (1) a “palpable defect, ” (2) that misled the court and the parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F.Supp.2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citations omitted). “Generally . . . the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
The defendant’s motion essentially reiterates the arguments previously advanced by the defendant in his motion to suppress. The Court addressed and rejected those arguments in its prior opinion and need not do so again here. The defendant has failed to show any palpable defect in the Court’s opinion ...